From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 01:18:38 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 BAA01714 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZNN-0006Au-Pa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:18:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h915IDHi023730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:18:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZNN-0006Af-JB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:18:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01708 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZNK-000242-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:18:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZNK-00023z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:18:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZNB-00068O-GY; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZN4-00068A-0b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:17:54 -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 BAA01701 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZN0-00023p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:17:50 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.129]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZN0-00023l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:17:50 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.7]) by ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h915HbqE010139 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:17:38 -0500 (CDT) From: david nicol To: anti-spam research group Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1064985457.1046.98.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 Subject: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 01 Oct 2003 00:17:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Security Supersite Editor Larry Seltzer argues against sender-pays as intractably complex: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272889,00.asp -- david nicol / get a spamless forwarding address at http://www.pay2send.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 01:42:28 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 BAA02524 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:42:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZkR-00084I-TW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:42:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h915g3F5031008 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:42:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZkR-000843-N0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02493 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZkO-0002L9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:42:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZkO-0002L6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:42:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZkO-00081p-2J; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4Zjb-0007yz-NX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:41:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02448 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZjY-0002Jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:41:08 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZjX-0002Jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:41:07 -0400 Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105] helo=chromatix.demon.co.uk) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A4ZjX-0005WB-OE for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:41:07 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Jonathan Morton To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Consent Framework Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:41:06 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think I have got a handle on Yakov's proposed Consent Framework, or at least what it attempts to achieve. The actual document remains sadly opaque to me. I'll try to summarise my understanding below. Yakov, feel free to correct me if I'm completely off-base. The "Consent Framework", while presently documented in an extremely formal and opaque manner, is nothing more than a "system of systems", aimed at combining the best-of-breed proposals (the exact ones to be determined at some time in the future) into a single, cohesive, implementable e-mail system. Preferably, of course, leveraging the existing SMTP infrastructure, because that makes implementation several orders of magnitude easier. I believe another goal is for additional components to be added to the framework as and when necessary, and therefore the system will be governed by some extensible protocol and/or message formatting standards. The main components of the framework might be: - Sender identification - Whitelist for stable sender/recipient relationships - Monetary payment (using tokens issued by trusted authorities, eg e-stamps) - Computational payment (generating tokens autonomously, eg hashcash) - Trust directories (identifying which payment and/or authentication authorities are trustworthy) - Message category labelling - BCPs for effective recipient filtering based on above facilities - BCPs for senders (of various categories) for efficient use of above facilities Based on the above, it might be a good idea to split my own "E-mail Authentication" paper into two parts, one dealing with the authentication itself, and one dealing with establishing the trustworthiness of the MAA (Mail Authentication Agent). Then both would fit neatly into positions in the above list, along with other people's hashcash, stamp authority, labelling, and whitelist schemes. With any luck, that should make things a heap clearer for everyone (myself included), unless of course Yakov is going to point out how incorrect I am. :-) -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 02:14:34 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 CAA14551 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aFU-0001wJ-I3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:14:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h916E82E007456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:14:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aFT-0001w2-VX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:14:08 -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 CAA14191 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aFQ-0002fb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:14:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aFQ-0002fY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:14:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aFN-0001sX-6u; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aEb-0001oC-As for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:13:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13430 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aEX-0002es-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:13:09 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aET-0002ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:13:05 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.248.52]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM200AGWEHGHJ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:10:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 4d. Consent Framework (was Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Consent Framework) In-reply-to: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Andrew Akehurst , "Pete (Madscientist)" Message-id: <3F7A6FC2.5010508@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 02:10:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan Morton wrote: > I think I have got a handle on Yakov's proposed Consent Framework, or at > least what it attempts to achieve. The actual document remains sadly > opaque to me. I'll try to summarise my understanding below. Yakov, > feel free to correct me if I'm completely off-base. > Just a minor correction on the subject line, the consent framework has a separate item number. Also, I am basing the framework on the charter, so I don't know if it is correct to call it mine. > The "Consent Framework", while presently documented in an extremely > formal and opaque manner, is nothing more than a "system of systems", > aimed at combining the best-of-breed proposals (the exact ones to be > determined at some time in the future) into a single, cohesive, > implementable e-mail system. Preferably, of course, leveraging the > existing SMTP infrastructure, because that makes implementation several > orders of magnitude easier. > Sorry for being "formal and opaque" but I followed the similar model used for IMs defined by the IMPP WG (see RFC 2778). I have been considering for a long time whether to rewrite the document to be less formal and opaque, and recent discussions especially the thread with Gordon has been strongly pointing in that direction. Jonathan is correct - the consent framework seeks to tie in all of the existing and future solutions into one system. The central tie-in point to the whole framework is the notion of consent which is presently absent from the email system while being present in some form in other messaging systems such as Instant Messaging (IM). From the charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html): "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." and "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." What the consent framework tries to do is to introduce this notion in a standard way with protocols and formats, that can be carried over all anti-spam tools. But I think Jonathan has expressed this in much better way than me :) > I believe another goal is for additional components to be added to the > framework as and when necessary, and therefore the system will be > governed by some extensible protocol and/or message formatting standards. > Correct. > The main components of the framework might be: > > - Sender identification > - Whitelist for stable sender/recipient relationships > - Monetary payment (using tokens issued by trusted authorities, eg > e-stamps) > - Computational payment (generating tokens autonomously, eg hashcash) > - Trust directories (identifying which payment and/or authentication > authorities are trustworthy) > - Message category labelling The charter summarizes it into three components: 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. 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 Consent expression component interfaces with the user to specify what settings the user wants. Policy enforcement components are the anti-spam tools that actually process the mail based on those settings and input provided by source tracking components. Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. Sorry for being "formal" but I am following the terminology of the charter. > - BCPs for effective recipient filtering based on above facilities > - BCPs for senders (of various categories) for efficient use of above > facilities > BCPs are basically the policy documents to make sure that the framework is used properly - kind of like manuals. > Based on the above, it might be a good idea to split my own "E-mail > Authentication" paper into two parts, one dealing with the > authentication itself, and one dealing with establishing the > trustworthiness of the MAA (Mail Authentication Agent). Then both would > fit neatly into positions in the above list, along with other people's > hashcash, stamp authority, labelling, and whitelist schemes. > > With any luck, that should make things a heap clearer for everyone > (myself included), unless of course Yakov is going to point out how > incorrect I am. :-) Jonathan - your explanation has been extremely heplful. As a matter of fact, it seems that I will need additional help rewriting the framework document, specifically on how to rewrite it so "normal" humans can understand it :) If you wish to help with the writing and the editing, please contact me. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 02:16:31 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 CAA15828 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aHQ-0002JU-F6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:16:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h916G8Lj008862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aHO-0002In-D8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:16:06 -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 CAA15491 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aHJ-0002iE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aHJ-0002iB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aHK-0002Cn-JU; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aH7-0002Ap-5L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:15:49 -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 CAA15353 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aH3-0002ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:15:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aH3-0002hQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:15:45 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.248.52]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM20057LEP7IP@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:15:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) In-reply-to: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> To: david nicol Cc: anti-spam research group Message-id: <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.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: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:13:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE david nicol wrote: > Security Supersite Editor Larry Seltzer argues > against sender-pays as intractably complex: >=20 > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272889,00.asp >=20 NOTE: I changed the subject as per the posting guidelines To summarize the article, the following problems apply to sender-pays= : 1. The Internet is global - "So implementing Sender Pays would requir= e=20 an international treaty". 2. "Micropayments remain a problem." 3. "Payment systems would have to be set up so that innocent parties= =20 wouldn't be stuck covering the cost of other persons' e-mails. Probab= ly=20 everyone would have to pay some amount in advance to cover the mail w= e=20 might send." 4. "by adding a cost to a message, Sender Pays would certainly impact= =20 the free e-mail business. Such services would have to decide whether = to=20 pass the costs along or pick up the tab." 5. "Here's another interesting problem: allegations have been made th= at=20 there are Internet worms and other attacks that create an open proxy = for=20 spammers on an infected system" - "While this particular form of=20 hijacking is built on old-fashioned SMTP, it would still suggest that= =20 Sender Pays will require that we first solve the open proxy problem= =97yet=20 another difficult issue." Perhaps someone here wants to address them? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 02:24:35 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 CAA21704 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aPD-0002n7-KF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:24:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h916OBuZ010723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:24:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aPB-0002mr-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21268 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aP7-0002nB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:24:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4aP7-0002n8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:24:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4aP3-0002ki-GO; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ZR6-0006KJ-2j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:22:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01863 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZR2-00027F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:22:00 -0400 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.167]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ZR2-00026W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 01:22:00 -0400 Received: from wombat.fernhaven (c210-49-135-239.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.135.239]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h915LTL01703 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:21:29 +1000 Received: from [172.16.0.99] (helo=dh99.fernhaven) by wombat.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4ZQW-0000Wh-00 for ; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:21:28 +1000 From: Brett Watson To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:21:28 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There has been some discussion of pull-based mail on the list recently. I'd like to mount a brief defence of the "pull" concept at its most general level, rather than the specific application of it that has been bandied about (push a notification). Consider a variation on SMTP where the DATA phase is replaced by the sender passing a token which allows the recipient to call the sender back and pull the message data when it is ready to do so. This has the following advantages. 1. An open HTTP proxy is no longer a sufficient tool for the distribution of spam, as the callback will fail. A fully compromised host (zombie) can still be employed as an MTA, but any intervening firewalls which block incoming connections will spoil the attempt, and the host's effectiveness will be seriously limited by the time it spends online, since it can't choose when the callback connections will arrive. 2. The mail system currently allows the sender to take an entirely active role in the process. It is desirable to reduce the sender's overall power in the mail transfer process, since senders are the more problematic party, and assigning them a more passive role is one way of moving towards this end. A shift from "push" to "pull" is one obvious consequence of this approach. 3. "Pull" is a perfect match for "greylisting". In a push-based system, the recipient must temporarily refuse the message until the timeout period has passed. In the case of a pull-based system, the recipient merely delays the pull attempt until such time as it is ready. In a pull-based system, the timing of the message fetch is primarily under the control of the recipient (as it should be: refer point 2). All modes of "hit and run" spamming are diminished in effectiveness by greylisting, and "pull" facilitates greylisting. 4. There is no significant cost to the sender to implement this, as opposed to a "proof of work" system or payment system. Compliant SMTP systems must already deal with message queueing: the "pull" approach merely hands off the timing of message transfer to the recipient. This can even offer a slight efficiency advantage in cases where the recipient's mail-store is full (or similar), since the recipient is in the best position to know when it's able to receive the message. Note that I only suggest this mechanism for use in the case of "inter-domain" mail, where no prior trust relationship exists between MTAs. I don't see it as useful in the case of mail submission from an MUA to an MTA. I further investigate the smallest set of modifications to SMTP that would be required to support "pull" in section 4 of my honours thesis (dated July 2002) at the following address. http://www.comp.mq.edu.au/~brett/bschons/part4.html Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 04:33:52 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 EAA03050 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4cQK-0000tI-Sh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:33:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h918XSKe003420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:33:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4cQK-0000t5-GH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:33:28 -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 EAA03011 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4cQG-0003ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:33:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4cQG-0003yX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:33:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4cPx-0000lY-Aj; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:33:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4cP2-0000gb-0m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:32:08 -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 EAA02948 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4cOy-0003x7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:32:04 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4cOy-0003x3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:32:04 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h918VY69062820; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:32:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:46:29 +0200 At 3:21 PM +1000 2003/10/01, Brett Watson wrote: > 3. "Pull" is a perfect match for "greylisting". In a push-based system, the > recipient must temporarily refuse the message until the timeout period has > passed. In the case of a pull-based system, the recipient merely delays the > pull attempt until such time as it is ready. In a pull-based system, the > timing of the message fetch is primarily under the control of the recipient > (as it should be: refer point 2). All modes of "hit and run" spamming are > diminished in effectiveness by greylisting, and "pull" facilitates > greylisting. In essence, this would be like asking recipients to go to the remote post office box for each and every sender, when they wanted to pick up mail. On the Internet, this isn't as bad as it would be in the real world, but it would still be exceptionally painful. Moreover, while envelope-based filtering would be made easier, body content filtering would still require obtaining the message body and then looking at it. Until you can provide mechanisms that have strong cryptographic authentication that securely tie in a particular notice to a particular message body, and you can ensure that it is physically impossible for someone to accidentally or intentionally swap message bodies, I don't see where you can get this mechanism to work. There's a reason why the envelope is delivered along with the message body, even if the entire envelope is a forgery (beyond the source and recipient addresses). For MTAs that split the envelope from the message body, they have to deal with a two-phase commit problem to keep the two in sync. That makes the problem significantly more difficult to deal with. Now you're talking about not only splitting the envelope and body into two separate files, but into two completely separate transactions. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 05:44:39 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 FAA05624 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4dWn-0004X0-3q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:44:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h919iD4I017414 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:44:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4dWm-0004Wn-Ur for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:44:13 -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 FAA05619 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dWj-0004uN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:44:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dWj-0004uK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:44:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4dWb-0004UZ-Dz; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4dVv-0004UF-FB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:43:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05603 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 05:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dVr-0004u1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:43:15 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dVq-0004ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:43:14 -0400 Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105] helo=chromatix.demon.co.uk) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A4dVd-0008Uo-VK; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:43:01 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Andrew Akehurst , "Pete (Madscientist)" To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <3F7A6FC2.5010508@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Oct 2003 10:43:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> The "Consent Framework", while presently documented in an extremely >> formal and opaque manner, is nothing more than a "system of systems", >> aimed at combining the best-of-breed proposals (the exact ones to be >> determined at some time in the future) into a single, cohesive, >> implementable e-mail system. Preferably, of course, leveraging the >> existing SMTP infrastructure, because that makes implementation >> several orders of magnitude easier. > > Jonathan is correct - the consent framework seeks to tie in all of the > existing and future solutions into one system. The central tie-in > point to the whole framework is the notion of consent which is > presently absent from the email system while being present in some > form in other messaging systems such as Instant Messaging (IM). > > What the consent framework tries to do is to introduce this notion in > a standard way with protocols and formats, that can be carried over > all anti-spam tools. But I think Jonathan has expressed this in much > better way than me :) > >> I believe another goal is for additional components to be added to >> the framework as and when necessary, and therefore the system will be >> governed by some extensible protocol and/or message formatting >> standards. > > Correct. > >> The main components of the framework might be: >> - Sender identification >> - Whitelist for stable sender/recipient relationships >> - Monetary payment (using tokens issued by trusted authorities, eg >> e-stamps) >> - Computational payment (generating tokens autonomously, eg hashcash) >> - Trust directories (identifying which payment and/or authentication >> authorities are trustworthy) >> - Message category labelling > > The charter summarizes it into three components: Excuse me while I reshuffle these... > 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 is covered by "sender identification" and "trust directories". > o Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the > communication system that enforce the policy. The remaining mechanisms in my list (except the BCPs) fill this role. But really, I think the distinction between the two is pretty slim. I'd rather have one Consent Verification Component with all the mechanisms put together. > o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a > policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of > communications And this, I think, is the part which hasn't really been addressed yet - at least, not by itself. I think the assumption has been that it'll mostly live in the MUA, and is therefore safe to leave as a implementation detail. Are you suggesting that the Policy Enforcement should mostly live on the MTA, and therefore the recipient's MUA must express consent (really, filtering preferences) by communicating with the MTA? To be honest, I'm not sure that the MTA is usually in a position to receive filtering commands from the recipient's MUA. An MUA usually retrieves mail using POP3 or IMAP, not SMTP, which rather disconnects it from the inbound MTA - which in large ISPs is frequently disconnected from the outbound smarthost which the MUA *does* connect to via SMTP. However, a logically separate MFA (Mail Filtering Agent) would perhaps be plausible - SpamAssassin run in "spamd" mode might be an example of this role. The MFA might be attached to the MTA, or be a plugin to the MUA, or even reside on a separate server (potentially run by the ISP or a third party) and be called by the MUA. Also, I think there's a fourth component missing from your list - the sender has to attach the relevant metadata/tokens to the message at (or near) origin. Most of the mechanisms I suggest must interact with this component, in addition to the others. This component probably has to include the concepts of mail-forwarding and listservs. Perhaps it might be called the Message Introduction Component? Or was this what you originally meant by the Source Tracking Component? If so, I think the "mechanisms" as I listed would be orthogonal to the "components" that you speak of - so instead of placing them into one category or the other, we have to see which mechanisms need part of their implementation in each component. > Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components > with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. No... only two of them attempt to "trace" the source of the message. The remainder are used to find out about the "worth" of the message itself. The final filtering decision is presumably based upon information from all of the mechanisms. For example, the lack of strong traceability of a particular message would normally cause the whitelist information to be treated as less reliable, but the lack of a strong whitelisting would probably be offset if it carried a (monetary or computational) payment token. Also, if the credentials carried by the message were found to have been generated by a discredited authority, this would probably reflect negatively on the message as a whole, whatever it carried. >> - BCPs for effective recipient filtering based on above facilities >> - BCPs for senders (of various categories) for efficient use of above >> facilities > > BCPs are basically the policy documents to make sure that the > framework is used properly - kind of like manuals. Still an essential part of the system. >> With any luck, that should make things a heap clearer for everyone >> (myself included), unless of course Yakov is going to point out how >> incorrect I am. :-) > > Jonathan - your explanation has been extremely heplful. As a matter of > fact, it seems that I will need additional help rewriting the > framework document, specifically on how to rewrite it so "normal" > humans can understand it :) If you wish to help with the writing and > the editing, please contact me. Yes, I think I could do that. But in particular, I hope that more list members now realise that the Consent Framework is in fact an important and useful document. There are a lot of proposals coming in which try to cover multiple aspects of the system at once (usually doing one well and others poorly), and I suspect this is due to ignorance of the framework and it's intentions. It would be overall better if proposal authors were more aware of the Consent Framework, and were thus able to design their mechanisms as single-purpose plugins to it, instead of jack-of-all-trades megaproposals. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 06:02:32 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 GAA06077 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4do7-0005Iy-FP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:02:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91A27m3020389 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:02:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4do7-0005Im-83 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:02:07 -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 GAA06035 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:01:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4do3-000528-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:02:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4do3-000525-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:02:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4do1-0005GR-PS; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4dnJ-0005Fm-GQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:01:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06009 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dnF-00051X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:01:13 -0400 Received: from mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4dnE-000514-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:01:13 -0400 Received: from wombat.fernhaven (c210-49-135-239.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.135.239]) by mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h91A0fk28427 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:00:41 +1000 Received: from [172.16.0.99] (helo=dh99.fernhaven) by wombat.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4dmi-0000sA-00; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:00:40 +1000 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:00:38 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In essence, this would be like asking recipients to go to the > remote post office box for each and every sender, when they wanted to > pick up mail. On the Internet, this isn't as bad as it would be in > the real world, but it would still be exceptionally painful. I'm not quite sure which "recipient" you mean: I was referring to the receiving MTA in a mail exchange between domains with no prior trust relationship. The receiving MTA would pull the message from the sending MTA and deliver it to the message repository (subject to policy) in a way that is transparent to any agent or person beyond that point. The analogy you give is technically accurate, but you could also describe the existing situation as like hanging around in a well-advertised location all day and night just in case someone wants to talk to you. It makes it sound as though a person is being inconvenienced, when all we are talking about is a computer program (the MTA). > Until you can provide mechanisms that have strong cryptographic > authentication that securely tie in a particular notice to a > particular message body, and you can ensure that it is physically > impossible for someone to accidentally or intentionally swap message > bodies, I don't see where you can get this mechanism to work. I don't see that this argument applies. It is possible to require the sender to commit to a particular message by including the SHA1 digest (or similar) of that message as part of the callback token, but I don't see that it gains us anything in this instance. The receiving MTA is expecting some arbitrary message. It is possible, in this instance, that the message could be changed between the receiver being told about it and actually fetching it, but what's the associated threat? I changed this message several times before anyone else saw it -- what's the difference? > There's a reason why the envelope is delivered along with the > message body, even if the entire envelope is a forgery (beyond the > source and recipient addresses). For MTAs that split the envelope > from the message body, they have to deal with a two-phase commit > problem to keep the two in sync. That makes the problem > significantly more difficult to deal with. I think we may be confusing our vocabulary here. I understand "envelope" to mean all the metadata associated with the SMTP dialogue, and "message" to mean the information passed in the DATA phase of SMTP, which is supposed to conform to STD 11 (RFC 822 and its successors). The message consists of a "header" (or "header fields") and a "body". This is the terminology used by RFC 2822 (see sections 1.1 and 2.1). I can't comprehend your remark, "even if the entire envelope is a forgery (beyond the source and recipient addresses)", except by assuming that you meant "message header" rather than "envelope", since the "MAIL From:" and "RCPT To:" addresses are basically all there is in envelope data. But if I make that assumption, I can no longer see the relevance of your remark to my argument at all, since I've said nothing about separating the message header from the message body: the whole message is pulled in a separate session. Perhaps you could explain the nature of the two-phase commit problem in a little more detail? Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 06:56:41 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 GAA07723 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eeZ-0008Gc-IM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91AuJ8L031772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:56:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eeZ-0008GN-EP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:19 -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 GAA07717 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eeV-0005c3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eeU-0005c0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eeH-0008Cp-5G; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eeG-0008Cc-0N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:56:00 -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 GAA07714 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eeB-0005bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:55:55 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eeB-0005bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:55:55 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h91Atr67076947; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:55:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: Brad Knowles , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:55:27 +0200 At 8:00 PM +1000 2003/10/01, Brett Watson wrote: > I'm not quite sure which "recipient" you mean: I was referring to the > receiving MTA in a mail exchange between domains with no prior trust > relationship. The receiving MTA would pull the message from the sending MTA > and deliver it to the message repository (subject to policy) in a way that is > transparent to any agent or person beyond that point. Okay, then. Remind me what the benefit is that you're trying to achieve? Pure envelope decisions could be made before the message body is transmitted, regardless of how that transmission occurs. No change is required to the protocol. Message content decisions can only be made once the message content has been received, regardless of how that transmission occurs. Again, no change to the protocol is required. Greylisting does not affect these issues in any way, nor is it impacted by them. > I don't see that this argument applies. It is possible to require the sender > to commit to a particular message by including the SHA1 digest (or similar) > of that message as part of the callback token, but I don't see that it gains > us anything in this instance. The receiving MTA is expecting some arbitrary > message. It is possible, in this instance, that the message could be changed > between the receiver being told about it and actually fetching it, but what's > the associated threat? I changed this message several times before anyone > else saw it -- what's the difference? You give spammers a new avenue of attack. All they need to do is compromise a "message pull" storage server, and replace the message bodies there with their spam. The notifications that were originally sent out were perfectly legitimate, but the message bodies that the recipients get are bogus. You have to be able to guarantee that the recipient (MTA) can determine whether or not the message body has changed since the notice was sent. Moreover, this requires that the stored message bodies can only be used unidirectionally. Otherwise, once you've posted your reply the sender could then change the text it appears that you're replying to, which might change the whole tone of the discussion -- instead of violently opposing cruelty to animals, you are instead seen as violently opposing respected charities beneficial towards animals. This also implies that the original stored message content is unrecoverable by the recipient, if they didn't check the message before the content changed. All they'd have is an SHA-1 digest that tells them about a message that supposedly existed for them, but it is no longer available. You might be able to create a chaining mechanism, which says that message body with hash X was replaced by message body with hash Y, but unless you require the "message pull" storage server to keep a copy of each and every version of each and every message body, you would have no way to know what was in any of the previous versions of the message. > Perhaps you could explain the nature of the two-phase commit problem in a > little more detail? Sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about splitting the headers from the message body. My bad. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 07:10:29 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 HAA07999 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eru-00010o-PQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:10:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91BA6T7003884 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:10:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4eru-00010Z-Ha for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:10:06 -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 HAA07992 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4erq-0005i0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4erp-0005hx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:10:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4err-0000x4-7C; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:10:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4er1-0000wa-UC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:09:11 -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 HAA07956 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:09:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eqx-0005hs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:09:07 -0400 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4eqx-0005hp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:09:07 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1A4eqy-00060Y-K3 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:08 +0100 > >To be honest, I'm not sure that the MTA is usually in a position to >receive filtering commands from the recipient's MUA. An MUA usually >retrieves mail using POP3 or IMAP, not SMTP, which rather disconnects >it from the inbound MTA - which in large ISPs is frequently >disconnected from the outbound smarthost which the MUA *does* connect >to via SMTP. > A policy enforcement component might be implemented at the same point (or perhaps *by*) an upstream MTA. In fact anything that does this job is, I suppose, a MTA (or MDA) by definition. This is how things are done in a WebMail system that I'm familiar with. Message disposition is implemented by the delivery component of the MTA software (somewhat) under the control of the user. A problem is that there is no *standard* way to convey recipient policy back towards (not necessarily *to*) the sender. So it's only possible to configure Policy (MTA filtering) via the proprietary MUA software (in this example). If someone chooses to use the account via "pine" (for instance) they lose the ability to configure their "Spam Protection" / other filtering. i.e - this can only be done via the web interface. Also, it's not easy to propagate user policy beyond the terminal MTA (not even to 2ndary MXs) since you're likely to be talking about heterogenous MTA software. A standard policy / consent expression mechanism would allow any MUA implementing it to communicate with any other MTS component which also implements it. >However, a logically separate MFA (Mail Filtering Agent) would perhaps >be plausible - SpamAssassin run in "spamd" mode might be an example of >this role. The MFA might be attached to the MTA, or be a plugin to the >MUA, or even reside on a separate server (potentially run by the ISP or >a third party) and be called by the MUA. > MFA = instance of "policy enforcement component" surely? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 12:06:51 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 MAA21167 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jUi-0002Sk-4C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91G6SDx009460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:06:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jUi-0002SV-09 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:28 -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 MAA21143 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jUg-0001TX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jUg-0001TU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jUI-0002OY-4K; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jTo-0002NT-Cg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:05:32 -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 MAA21087 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jTn-0001SZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:05:31 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jTm-0001S6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:05:30 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id AB824A900F4; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:06:26 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:14:10 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <82001fb0-bb2c-4826-91ea-c6ed0f1015eb> content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOINiRI0PVzy83cRCa4TrFIE44ufg== From: "Peter Kay" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Oct 2003 06:07:41 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to Eric/Yakov's draft=20 at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt . ASRG owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I personally thank you for furthering an important area of interoperability. On loop avoidance section, specifically: "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's email address as the sender of the challenge message." We disgree. Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his challenge is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays or filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be invoked, possibly creating unecessary overhead. Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging other challenges. =20 Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 12:09:33 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 MAA21311 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jXG-0002tI-4o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91G96lH011106 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:09:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jXG-0002sh-0O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:06 -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 MAA21285 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jXD-0001W0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jXC-0001Vx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:09:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jXB-0002pA-S3; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4jWW-0002ms-DM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:08:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21266 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jWV-0001VZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:08:19 -0400 Received: from mail006.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.63]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jWU-0001Uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:08:18 -0400 Received: from wombat.fernhaven (c210-49-135-239.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.135.239]) by mail006.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h91G7k107027 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 02:07:46 +1000 Received: from [172.16.0.99] (helo=dh99.fernhaven) by wombat.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4jVw-0003IU-00; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:07:44 +1000 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> 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, 2 Oct 2003 02:07:43 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:55, Brad Knowles wrote: > Okay, then. Remind me what the benefit is that you're trying to achieve? I thought I made that clear in my first message, but apparently not. I'll t= ry=20 again, but aim for practical examples rather than philosophical principles= =20 this time. A large volume of spam is currently shifted through proxy servers: either=20 misconfigured HTTP proxies, or virus-compromised PCs with added malware=20 (zombies) [ref. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/6061]. They provid= e=20 a convenient way for a spammer to hide behind someone else's IP address.=20 Requiring a callback to fetch the message data makes this approach much=20 harder for a spammer, as it would require proxies in both directions: an HT= TP=20 proxy will not suffice at all, and the longer the callback is delayed, the= =20 more likely a zombie will have gone offline (at least temporarily), thus=20 causing delivery failure. Consider viruses which propagate by means of their own SMTP engine: by far = the=20 most common variety, as I understand. They distribute themselves=20 opportunistically, relying on immediate delivery; if they encounter a=20 temporary failure, they just move on to the next target rather than wasting= =20 time. Many spamming tools seem to work the same way: spammers compensate fo= r=20 delivery failures by attempting delivery to a larger number of addresses,=20 rather than sitting around and waiting for the mail to get through to=20 unresponsive sites. This is why greylisting works [ref.=20 http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/]. The "pull" mode of delivery complements this very well, because in a pull-m= ode=20 delivery, the receiving system controls the timing of delivery. Greylisting= =20 is like saying, "if you're serious about sending me this message, call me=20 back later." Pull-mode delivery is like saying, "if you're serious about=20 sending me this message, let *me* call *you* back later, when *I* feel like= =20 it." It puts more control of the process into the hands of the recipient, a= nd=20 greater recipient control is what we chiefly need, since recipients are the= =20 victims. It also places greater responsibility on the sender, since they mu= st=20 operate a server in one place long enough for you to call it back. > Pure envelope decisions could be made before the message body is > transmitted, regardless of how that transmission occurs. No change > is required to the protocol. Indeed, but you are under modestly significant timeout constraints if you w= ant=20 to pause to check various things in the middle of an SMTP dialogue. With=20 pull, you can accept the envelope data, then do your policy checks on it in= =20 your own time. Timeout constraints are relaxed by at least an order of=20 magnitude, and you're not holding a TCP connection open while you do it,=20 either. So there is a benefit here, albeit a relatively minor one. > You give spammers a new avenue of attack. All they need to do is > compromise a "message pull" storage server, and replace the message > bodies there with their spam. The notifications that were originally > sent out were perfectly legitimate, but the message bodies that the > recipients get are bogus. The "message pull" storage server is an outgoing MTA -- one that normally a= cts=20 in a role of accepting SMTP connections from your network and doing a=20 store-and-forward to the remainder of the Internet. It may also be an=20 incoming MTA. If spammers have compromised it, you have *much* bigger=20 problems than the scenario you mentioned, regardless of your mail transfer= =20 protocol. > You have to be able to guarantee that the recipient (MTA) can > determine whether or not the message body has changed since the > notice was sent. I still don't see that this is a realistic threat, but as I said, the sendi= ng=20 MTA can pass a SHA1 digest with the envelope data, and thus commit to a=20 message in exactly the manner you desire. Or would that still be=20 unsatisfactory for some reason? A SHA1 digest would provide an additional DCC-like data point to evaluate a= s=20 part of the policy check, and I can see some value in that. The sender coul= d=20 also commit up-front to a message size, and that would be useful. Both of=20 those data points can be verified after download, and the message rejected= =20 due to "data corruption" if the checks fail. These are additional ideas whi= ch=20 can be sensibly built onto the pull-mode base if they are considered=20 valuable. > Moreover, this requires that the stored message bodies can only > be used unidirectionally. =46rom this point on, I'm afraid that you lost me again. I think you're arg= uing=20 against a scheme that someone else proposed. I'm attempting to argue that t= he=20 smallest possible addition of pull-mode behaviour into SMTP would make it=20 more robust against many mail-abuse techniques: that's all. Once a message= =20 has been pulled, I expect the sending MTA to delete it, just as it=20 (presumably) does for a successful push-mode delivery. The same old=20 store-and-forward model applies, just with the recipient taking a more acti= ve=20 role. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 12:26:35 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 MAA22184 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jnl-0003yr-T9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:26:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91GQ9kw015295 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:26:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jnl-0003yc-Ng for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:26:09 -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 MAA22162 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jnk-0001lq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:26:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jnj-0001ln-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:26:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jne-0003v5-0p; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4jnR-0003uS-4Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22137 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jnP-0001ld-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:47 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4jnP-0001lL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:47 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.167.70]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM300HXO6XY2Y@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:25:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Cc: Alan DeKok Message-id: <3F7AFFE3.5080803@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX - Reconciliation process start Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi folks, All of the various RMX parties have finally been contacted and have agreed to work together. A mailing list has been setup for that activity as well. Alan DeKok has volunteer to coordinate the effort. Regular updates are expected on the main list about these efforts. If anyone would like to help, please contact Alan or the co-chairs. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 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 MAA22803 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 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 1A4k5E-0004ws-UU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:44:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91GiC7m019016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:44:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4k5E-0004wd-Nf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:44:12 -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 MAA22791 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4k5B-0001ws-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:44:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4k5B-0001wp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:44:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4k53-0004uP-4X; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4k4x-0004uB-Bq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:43:56 -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 MAA22780 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4k4t-0001wV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:43:51 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4k4s-0001wR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:43:50 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A48625F0112; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:44:54 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:52:36 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: 6. Proposals - Sender Verification (was Re: [Asrg] Simple wayto verify sender, track mail abusers) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 6. Proposals - Sender Verification (was Re: [Asrg] Simple wayto verify sender, track mail abusers) Thread-Index: AcOGjspgMRtbpoxpStaLz1QlI3eaegBqoRlA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "david nicol" , "Dennis Gearon" , , "Brad Knowles" 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, 1 Oct 2003 06:46:07 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I starting going through our logs to answer to your below but there is so much variance for so many different reasons I can't see how some of the results will tell you anything. I've tried to answer below as best as I can and where I didn't think it was relevant I explained why.=20 >=20 > For example, >=20 > 1) What percentage (and volume) of challenges are responded? Huge variance here based on how much spam an account gets. One of mine gets 40spams/day and no responded challenges, yet another gets 7 spams/week and 2 responses for 28%. =20 > 2) What percentage of challenges bounce? I could see where this might give you something good/consistent as most challenged emails are spam.=20 300 challenges. 120 bounces. 0 responses. Or about 40% > 3) What percentage of whitelisted senders are from CR vs.=20 > manual (or from outgoing email, Contacts-import....) Huge variance. My whitelist started out with 3000 entries. This account gets 7 spams per week so the CR-sourced whitelist is extremely small. =20 Another account started with a miniscule whitelist and got most of its entries from CR challenges and outgoing email.=20 > 4) What percentage of spam still gets through..and how/why? 9600 spams sent over 8 months. 6 "spam" came through. 0.042%. Reason: (4) nigerian scam people actually do respond to challenges! And (2) emails spoofed an address that I (previously) had domain-wide approval on. > 5) What percentage of users (and volume) use the CR system=20 > for anti-spam? How long to acclimate? Percentage of what users out of what? How long to acclimate: about a week. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 13:06:35 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 NAA23796 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kQW-0006CD-9k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:06:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91H6CxU023811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:06:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kQW-0006By-5I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:06:12 -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 NAA23743 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kQU-0002FP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:06:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kQT-0002FM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:06:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kQL-00068S-Ty; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kPl-00067j-45 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:05:25 -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 NAA23728 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kPj-0002Ew-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:05:23 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kPh-0002Er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:05:22 -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 h91H6HB09265; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:06:19 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 44E3C16FC8; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423AEF756; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) To: Brett Watson Cc: Brad Knowles , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" In-Reply-To: <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> 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: <20031001170505.44E3C16FC8@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, 01 Oct 2003 10:05:00 -0700 Brett Watson writes: > A large volume of spam is currently shifted through proxy servers: either > misconfigured HTTP proxies, or virus-compromised PCs with added malware > (zombies) [ref. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/6061]. They provide > a convenient way for a spammer to hide behind someone else's IP address. > Requiring a callback to fetch the message data makes this approach much > harder for a spammer, as it would require proxies in both directions: an HTTP > proxy will not suffice at all, and the longer the callback is delayed, the > more likely a zombie will have gone offline (at least temporarily), thus > causing delivery failure. Note that HTTP reverse-proxies *are* already being used by at least 1 spam gang to shield their spamvertized websites. Ie. they set up the spammed website on their hosting somewhere, then preload its content into several open web caches [1]. They then change the DNS record for that website to point to the caches, with a low TTL so they can switch it to the next cache when the proxy gets shut down. "Pull" methods should try to consider if this would still be workable. If it would, it's not a big deal for spammers to all start using that technique. ([1]: I'm not entirely sure how this is done off the top of my head right now. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 13:12:35 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 NAA24021 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kWJ-0006mt-T3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:12:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91HCBi9026085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:12:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kWJ-0006me-NQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:12:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24004 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kWH-0002KQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:12:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kWH-0002KN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:12:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kW8-0006ig-G6; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4kVU-0006gj-Hr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:11:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23983 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kVS-0002Jk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:11:18 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kVS-0002Jh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:11:18 -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 1A4kVq-0002SA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:11:42 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:07 EDT." <3F7AFFE3.5080803@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - RMX - Reconciliation process start Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 13:11:42 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > All of the various RMX parties have finally been contacted and have > agreed to work together. A mailing list has been setup for that activity > as well. Alan DeKok has volunteer to coordinate the effort. Regular > updates are expected on the main list about these efforts. If anyone > would like to help, please contact Alan or the co-chairs. The list should be active "soon". We're just coordinating administration of it, and I don't as yet have administrator priviledges. The plan is to have a draft ready for submission before Oct. 20, which is the deadline for first drafts for Minneapolis. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 13:21:30 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 NAA24417 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kex-0007cc-T4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91HL7r0029292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:21:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kex-0007cN-PC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24406 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kev-0002Sp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4kev-0002Sm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4keq-0007aA-Uu; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4kek-0007Zn-28 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:20:54 -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 NAA24396 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:20:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4keh-0002SY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:20:51 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4keh-0002SV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:20:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 296 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 17:20:50 -0000 Received: from frsc-dialdyna3c-66-228-140-39.advantexcom.net (66.228.140.39) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 17:20:50 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.228.140.39 From: "Terry Sullivan" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Terry Sullivan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap 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: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:21:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This particular message actually crosses a couple of different area boundaries. (I assume the message will be recharacterized if/however the chairs see fit.) A little while back, I posted a message solicting ideas for a kind of "shakedown run"--a "pilot project" that could be run in a short period of time, and I promised to summarize the results back to the list. Well, I received a total of two responses. One proposed an analysis-and-characterization of "passive" (i.e., archival) data (an excellent proposal, but not quite suitable for "shakedown" purposes). The second suggested studying greylisting along the lines of evan harris' previous work. I've had a brief flurry of off-list correspondence with folks regarding greylisting, and any pilot project would, among other things, need to establish its own baseline data. Again, the whole idea behind doing a pilot study was to discover what special requirements or problems anti-spam research studies might face. And I think we've discovered the first: trap addresses and their traffic. Data from multiple independent sources (including Liam Meany, Scott Nelson, and myself) indicate that "otherwise identical" trap addresses receive *vastly* different amounts of spam traffic. This unexplained variance in spam traffic is *very* large and all of it is "statistically 'bad' variance." That "bad variance" at least potentially compromises any ASRG effort that might use trap addresses. (Without some sort of "balancing" in trap address traffic, experimental effects might need to be as as large as an order-of-magnitude in order to achieve "statistical significance.") I can imagine a couple of possible solutions (though there may also be others I haven't thought of). One might be for ASRG to "borrow" trap addresses from large organizations/ISPs who were (or at least might be?) willing to share. The other is for ASRG to have an independent trap address maintenance effort. I floated this latter idea a while back, and it generated almost no interest at all. Obviously, a trap-address maintenance effort would be privvy to extremely sensitive data, and would probably need to be a handful of people (at most), whose efforts where "closed" to the larger group. Ultimately, the need/desired outcome would be on-demand availability of an appropriate number of comparably-trafficked trap addresses for research purposes, said addresses to be selected randomly from a larger pool. Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a need for a some sort of active (though not necessarily particularly time-consuming) trap address maintenance effort. Otherwise, the only real opportunity for *research* (as opposed to debate) lies in analysis/characterization of archival data. - Terry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 13:56:35 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 NAA25587 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4lCv-0000vB-UU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:56:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91HuD2E003535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:56:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4lCv-0000uw-OM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:56:13 -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 NAA25579 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4lCt-0002mV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:56:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4lCt-0002mS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:56:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4lCj-0000pi-GK; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4lBp-0000p5-4h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:55:05 -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 NAA25552 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4lBm-0002lz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:55:02 -0400 Received: from mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.161]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4lBl-0002le-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:55:02 -0400 Received: from wombat.fernhaven (c210-49-135-239.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.135.239]) by mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h91HsUJ03693 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:54:30 +1000 Received: from [172.16.0.99] (helo=dh99.fernhaven) by wombat.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4lBD-0006WI-00; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:54:27 +1000 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Brad Knowles , asrg@ietf.org References: <20031001170505.44E3C16FC8@jmason.org> In-Reply-To: <20031001170505.44E3C16FC8@jmason.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310020354.26391.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:54:26 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Justin Mason wrote: > Note that HTTP reverse-proxies *are* already being used by at least 1 spam > gang to shield their spamvertized websites. This is true. Some documentation on an instance of this can be found at the following site. http://www.lurhq.com/migmaf.html > "Pull" methods should try to consider if this would still be workable. If > it would, it's not a big deal for spammers to all start using that > technique. I expect that the "pull" technique would connect back to the IP from which the SMTP session originated. There may be other possibilities, but this seems like the safest and most reasonable protocol, for the purposes of this discussion, at least. It has the benefit of minimal difference to the existing "push" case. Under these circumstances, a reverse proxy can work, but the DNS tricks used in the case of reverse proxying a website won't have any effect (since no DNS lookup is necessarily involved). The effectiveness of the proxy will be limited by the amount of time the compromised machine stays online and available at a given IP address, having sent an envelope, relative to the average time to callback. So pull-mode delivery doesn't defeat this outright, but it's not friendly to it. I believe it's fair to say that it would shift the cost/benefit ratio of spam significantly in our favour without harming legitimate mail. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:07:53 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 QAA02262 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFv-0007Le-P7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91K7RSH028228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFu-0007Ks-Nq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02219 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nFt-0004Yv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nFs-0004Yr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFV-00077E-Sg; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nEo-00075f-2o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:18 -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 QAA02165 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nEm-0004XY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:16 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nEl-0004XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:15 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h91K5f6D001248; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:06:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031001170505.44E3C16FC8@jmason.org> References: <20031001170505.44E3C16FC8@jmason.org> To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: Brett Watson , Brad Knowles , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:57:32 +0200 At 10:05 AM -0700 2003/10/01, Justin Mason wrote: > "Pull" methods should try to consider if this would still be workable. If > it would, it's not a big deal for spammers to all start using that > technique. > > ([1]: I'm not entirely sure how this is done off the top of my head right > now. ;) DNS Cache pollution/poisoning. Jon Postel did it accidentally in the mid 90's, and Eugene Kashpureff did it again in 1997, and many, many servers remain vulnerable. At last survey, over 50% of the ccTLD servers were vulnerable to cache pollution/poisoning, which would imply that a much, much higher percentage of "regular" nameserves are likewise vulnerable. See . I'm sure Men & Mice has some numbers, too. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:31:55 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 QAA03070 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ndD-0000k7-5B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:31:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91KVVRY002849 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ndD-0000js-1d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:31:31 -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 QAA03064 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ndB-0004qG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:31:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ndA-0004qD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:31:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ncj-0000fN-VQ; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ncU-0000ej-3m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:30:46 -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 QAA03023 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ncS-0004pU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:30:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ncR-0004p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:30:43 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.167.70]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM300AR4IA802@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:30:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7B394C.2050109@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Is it the only way? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 16:30:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I want to pose a question to the group. The charter of the ASRG concentrates on the notion of consent for email. However, we need to look at whether this is the only approach to controlling spam: "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. " Even if the consent framework is completed, is it really the only way to look at spam? Perhaps, we should as many have suggested, reformulate the charter of the group to be more generic - to perhaps look at other possibilities beside consent. As of now the charter does include this: "ASRG will investigate the spam problem as a large-scale network problem. The ASRG will begin its work by developing a taxonomy of the problem and the proposed solutions. This taxonomy should involve casting the spam problem into different perspectives, such as examining the similarities between spam and denial-of-service; spam and intrusion detection/prevention; and spam and authentication, authorization, and accounting." I think we would need another effort to take place parallel with the consent framework - an evaluation of whether it is proper to add consent to email. Thoughts? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:34:29 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 QAA03165 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nff-0000wL-Sl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:34:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91KY3An003607 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:34:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nff-0000w6-Na for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:34:03 -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 QAA03144 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nfd-0004sL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nfd-0004sI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nfd-0000qE-9i; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nfI-0000pj-MO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:33:40 -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 QAA03132 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nfG-0004rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:33:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nfF-0004rk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:33:37 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.167.70]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM300DUJIETWQ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:32:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3F7B39E8.1000906@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 16:32:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jon Kyme wrote: > >>However, a logically separate MFA (Mail Filtering Agent) would perhaps >>be plausible - SpamAssassin run in "spamd" mode might be an example of >>this role. The MFA might be attached to the MTA, or be a plugin to the >>MUA, or even reside on a separate server (potentially run by the ISP or >>a third party) and be called by the MUA. >> > > MFA = instance of "policy enforcement component" surely? > > I don't think it makes a difference where exactly the policy enforcement component resides - in the MTA itself or as another system. As per charter: "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. " No reason to complicate it by including another acronym. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:48:33 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 QAA04010 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntJ-0002Cs-7Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91Km9AB008476 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntJ-0002Cd-2e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:09 -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 QAA03997 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ntG-0005CM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ntG-0005CJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntB-000280-TW; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4nsa-00027I-Ov for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:25 -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 QAA03956 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nsY-0005BT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:22 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nsY-0005B4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:22 -0400 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20031001204646012001s828e>; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:46:46 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.106]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3538F18684; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F7B3D46.3040807@zemos.net> From: Phil Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030908 Debian/1.4-4 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: david nicol , anti-spam research group Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > To summarize the article, the following problems apply to sender-pays: > = > 1. The Internet is global - =22So implementing Sender Pays would requir= e = > an international treaty=22. No, it only requires a multinational money-transfer agency, or a group = of such that can collectively manage this. Like Western Union, or the = global banking system, which seems to handle wire transfers just fine = worldwide. > 2. =22Micropayments remain a problem.=22 As their volume increases, their individual overhead will go down, due = to economies of scale. It may not be economical for a bank to allow the = transfer of 5 cents, or 1 cent, or a fraction thereof today, but it is = becoming cheaper at a steady pace. Again, not an insurmountable problem. > 3. =22Payment systems would have to be set up so that innocent parties = = > wouldn't be stuck covering the cost of other persons' e-mails. Probably= = > everyone would have to pay some amount in advance to cover the mail we = = > might send.=22 > 5. =22Here's another interesting problem: allegations have been made th= at = > there are Internet worms and other attacks that create an open proxy fo= r = > spammers on an infected system=22 - =22While this particular form of = > hijacking is built on old-fashioned SMTP, it would still suggest that = > Sender Pays will require that we first solve the open proxy problem=97y= et = > another difficult issue.=22 3 seems almost nonsensical. Is the author worried about hijacked = accounts? This is already a problem in the world in the form of identity = = theft, and it costs more than and does more damage than sending a few = million emails. And the systems to detect this used in the real world = are even easier to apply to email, because there must be some central = point from which the charge is drawn, and unlike credit charges, which = can be delyed, email, especially bulk email, is sent as a large lump, = and is thus easily detectable by whatever credit agent (bank, ISP, w/e) = handles the charges. 5 deals with a non-issue in secure client systems. The malacious agent = would be unable to authenticate itself as the owner or a user of the = system it resides on, and thus messages it sends would be rejected. Another approach to solving the hijacking problem would be to hold users = = liable for any messages sent that authenticate successfully as being = sent by them. This provides an economic incentive to secure one's = system, and could also lead to an insurance system for large entities = (think multi-billion dollar corporations) that would pool this risk and = provide a similar incentive to keep one's premium down. > 4. =22by adding a cost to a message, Sender Pays would certainly impact= = > the free e-mail business. Such services would have to decide whether to= = > pass the costs along or pick up the tab.=22 Odds are that the elimination of spam will save them much more than this = = will cost them. And if it doesn't, they will be forced to adapt or die. At any rate, a person could certainly consent to receive mail that does = not have a payment enclosed, if they wish to correspond with another = person who is unable to pay for email transmission. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:48:37 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 QAA04025 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntJ-0002D8-F8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91Km9R9008492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntJ-0002Ct-8z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:09 -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 QAA04000 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ntH-0005CQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ntG-0005CN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:48:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ntC-000288-Dp; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4nsj-00027P-AV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:33 -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 QAA03960 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nsh-0005BZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nsg-0005BB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:30 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.167.70]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM300AUAJ2402@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:47:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer In-reply-to: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Andrew Akehurst , "Pete (Madscientist)" Message-id: <3F7B3D32.8080501@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 16:46:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan Morton wrote: >>> The "Consent Framework", while presently documented in an extremely >>> formal and opaque manner, is nothing more than a "system of systems", >>> aimed at combining the best-of-breed proposals (the exact ones to be >>> determined at some time in the future) into a single, cohesive, >>> implementable e-mail system. Preferably, of course, leveraging the >>> existing SMTP infrastructure, because that makes implementation >>> several orders of magnitude easier. >> >> >> Jonathan is correct - the consent framework seeks to tie in all of the >> existing and future solutions into one system. The central tie-in >> point to the whole framework is the notion of consent which is >> presently absent from the email system while being present in some >> form in other messaging systems such as Instant Messaging (IM). >> >> What the consent framework tries to do is to introduce this notion in >> a standard way with protocols and formats, that can be carried over >> all anti-spam tools. But I think Jonathan has expressed this in much >> better way than me :) >> >>> I believe another goal is for additional components to be added to >>> the framework as and when necessary, and therefore the system will be >>> governed by some extensible protocol and/or message formatting >>> standards. >> >> >> Correct. >> >>> The main components of the framework might be: >>> - Sender identification >>> - Whitelist for stable sender/recipient relationships >>> - Monetary payment (using tokens issued by trusted authorities, eg >>> e-stamps) >>> - Computational payment (generating tokens autonomously, eg hashcash) >>> - Trust directories (identifying which payment and/or authentication >>> authorities are trustworthy) >>> - Message category labelling >> >> >> The charter summarizes it into three components: > > > > Excuse me while I reshuffle these... > >> 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 is covered by "sender identification" and "trust directories". > >> o Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the >> communication system that enforce the policy. > > > The remaining mechanisms in my list (except the BCPs) fill this role. > > But really, I think the distinction between the two is pretty slim. I'd > rather have one Consent Verification Component with all the mechanisms > put together. > That's open to discussion. Keep in mind that the charter is only suggesting, not dictating, as stated: "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 > > > And this, I think, is the part which hasn't really been addressed yet - > at least, not by itself. I think the assumption has been that it'll > mostly live in the MUA, and is therefore safe to leave as a > implementation detail. Are you suggesting that the Policy Enforcement > should mostly live on the MTA, and therefore the recipient's MUA must > express consent (really, filtering preferences) by communicating with > the MTA? > > To be honest, I'm not sure that the MTA is usually in a position to > receive filtering commands from the recipient's MUA. An MUA usually > retrieves mail using POP3 or IMAP, not SMTP, which rather disconnects it > from the inbound MTA - which in large ISPs is frequently disconnected > from the outbound smarthost which the MUA *does* connect to via SMTP. > > However, a logically separate MFA (Mail Filtering Agent) would perhaps > be plausible - SpamAssassin run in "spamd" mode might be an example of > this role. The MFA might be attached to the MTA, or be a plugin to the > MUA, or even reside on a separate server (potentially run by the ISP or > a third party) and be called by the MUA. > The choice of where it lives is left ot the implementators. It maybe a MUA that is also doing the spam processing, it could be a MUA communicating with an MTA, it could be a MUA communicating with an anti-spam tools, or it could be a dedicated GUI or webpage communicating with anti-spam tools or MTAs. All possibilies are open and we are not restricting to any of them. > Also, I think there's a fourth component missing from your list - the > sender has to attach the relevant metadata/tokens to the message at (or > near) origin. Most of the mechanisms I suggest must interact with this > component, in addition to the others. This component probably has to > include the concepts of mail-forwarding and listservs. Perhaps it might > be called the Message Introduction Component? > > Or was this what you originally meant by the Source Tracking Component? > If so, I think the "mechanisms" as I listed would be orthogonal to the > "components" that you speak of - so instead of placing them into one > category or the other, we have to see which mechanisms need part of > their implementation in each component. > You are correct - they may be part of source tracking components in cases such as digital signatures or e-postage. However, in other cases this maybe reside in the policy enforcement component. What complicates this more is that the sender's tagging behavior might be looked at his expression of consent or response to one. You are correct about orthogonal nature of this - there are some tools that will only fit one category, while others will cross over. >> Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components >> with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. > > > No... only two of them attempt to "trace" the source of the message. > The remainder are used to find out about the "worth" of the message > itself. The final filtering decision is presumably based upon > information from all of the mechanisms. > > For example, the lack of strong traceability of a particular message > would normally cause the whitelist information to be treated as less > reliable, but the lack of a strong whitelisting would probably be offset > if it carried a (monetary or computational) payment token. Also, if the > credentials carried by the message were found to have been generated by > a discredited authority, this would probably reflect negatively on the > message as a whole, whatever it carried. > I would think that a source tracking component category would apply to e-postage as well, specifically when verifying whether the e-stamp is valid and the authority that issued it is valid as well. >>> - BCPs for effective recipient filtering based on above facilities >>> - BCPs for senders (of various categories) for efficient use of above >>> facilities >> >> >> BCPs are basically the policy documents to make sure that the >> framework is used properly - kind of like manuals. > > > Still an essential part of the system. > Correct. >>> With any luck, that should make things a heap clearer for everyone >>> (myself included), unless of course Yakov is going to point out how >>> incorrect I am. :-) >> >> >> Jonathan - your explanation has been extremely heplful. As a matter of >> fact, it seems that I will need additional help rewriting the >> framework document, specifically on how to rewrite it so "normal" >> humans can understand it :) If you wish to help with the writing and >> the editing, please contact me. > > > Yes, I think I could do that. > Thanks! Please contact me off-list. > But in particular, I hope that more list members now realise that the > Consent Framework is in fact an important and useful document. There > are a lot of proposals coming in which try to cover multiple aspects of > the system at once (usually doing one well and others poorly), and I > suspect this is due to ignorance of the framework and it's intentions. > > It would be overall better if proposal authors were more aware of the > Consent Framework, and were thus able to design their mechanisms as > single-purpose plugins to it, instead of jack-of-all-trades megaproposals. > Awareness of the consent framework may have been bad because of the "opaque" nature of the document. There are some proposal guidelines in the works that will include a requirement to consider the consent framework. HOWEVER, as per my other post it is possible that there are other ways to look at spam solutions beside consent. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 16:54:34 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 QAA02261 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFv-0007Lf-Pa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91K7RsV028231 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFv-0007L7-5i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:27 -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 QAA02220 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nFt-0004Yy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nFs-0004Ys-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nFU-00076k-Ph; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:07:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4nEg-00075V-1E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02161 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nEd-0004XR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:07 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4nEd-0004XO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:06:07 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h91K5f6B001248; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:06:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: Brad Knowles , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:51:46 +0200 At 2:07 AM +1000 2003/10/02, Brett Watson wrote: > A large volume of spam is currently shifted through proxy servers: either > misconfigured HTTP proxies, or virus-compromised PCs with added malware > (zombies) [ref. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/6061]. They provide > a convenient way for a spammer to hide behind someone else's IP address. With you so far. > Requiring a callback to fetch the message data makes this approach much > harder for a spammer, as it would require proxies in both directions: an HTTP > proxy will not suffice at all, and the longer the callback is delayed, the > more likely a zombie will have gone offline (at least temporarily), thus > causing delivery failure. I disagree. In the case of zombies, which is becoming more and more the method of choice, they have complete control of the machine. They can send out the notices, wait for the callbacks, and then send the payload. All safe in the knowledge that they control the machine. Moreover, a network of zombies could easily be configured so that one zombie designates another as the call back server, and that process could even be distributed and load-balanced. > Consider viruses which propagate by means of their own SMTP engine: >by far the > most common variety, as I understand. They distribute themselves > opportunistically, relying on immediate delivery; if they encounter a > temporary failure, they just move on to the next target rather than wasting > time. Many spammers and viruses are already doing two rounds of attempts on the same recipient addresses. They don't actually queue, per se, in that they have only one copy of the message body and they do a mail-merge to the massive group of recipients (allowing them to operate entirely out of memory for maximum speed), but they do track status for the recipients and retry failures. > Many spamming tools seem to work the same way: spammers compensate for > delivery failures by attempting delivery to a larger number of addresses, > rather than sitting around and waiting for the mail to get through to > unresponsive sites. This is why greylisting works [ref. > http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/]. See above. Greylisting is currently working for a certain percentage of messages, but that percentage is rapidly decreasing. It will continue to be a valid useful tool in the future, but only in conjunction with other tools, especially message content scanning/central registry tools such as DCC/Vipul's Razor/Pyzor, and realtime per-IP address spam-reporting/blacklist tools. Greylisting gives them a much better chance of being able to catch and quarantine messages based on reports from other people. The next phase will be to rapidly change the message bodies fast enough so that DCC/Razor/Pyzor become less and less useful. Same for realtime IP address reporting/blacklist tools. > The "pull" mode of delivery complements this very well, because in >a pull-mode > delivery, the receiving system controls the timing of delivery. Greylisting > is like saying, "if you're serious about sending me this message, call me > back later." Pull-mode delivery is like saying, "if you're serious about > sending me this message, let *me* call *you* back later, when *I* feel like > it." That only affects the overall issue when done end-to-end. If you try to slot this in at the link layer, it doesn't help. If telemarketers have to call a number and leave a message for a callback but you are not in direct control of that callback, you are no better off than if they had called you directly. > Indeed, but you are under modestly significant timeout constraints >if you want > to pause to check various things in the middle of an SMTP dialogue. With > pull, you can accept the envelope data, then do your policy checks on it in > your own time. Envelope checks happen quickly anyway. If you're getting so many of them that you bog down doing them interactively, then you're not likely to have your situation improved by accepting everything and then trying to do them in the background. If anything, you're likely to be put in a worse position, as you get overrun by spam and viruses and you can't properly deal with the real messages. With both spam and viruses, you're best off if you can detect them interactively and refuse to accept them in the first place. If the sender manages to successfully transmit the message to you without being detected, they've won. > Timeout constraints are relaxed by at least an order of > magnitude, and you're not holding a TCP connection open while you do it, > either. So there is a benefit here, albeit a relatively minor one. If you want to do background mode for envelope checks, it could always be a fallback from interactive mode, although I still believe that it's a bad idea. > The "message pull" storage server is an outgoing MTA -- one that >normally acts > in a role of accepting SMTP connections from your network and doing a > store-and-forward to the remainder of the Internet. It may also be an > incoming MTA. If spammers have compromised it, you have *much* bigger > problems than the scenario you mentioned, regardless of your mail transfer > protocol. Yeah, but you've also given them a much bigger target. Why do criminals still go after banks, even with all the security, guards with guns, and everything else? Because that's where the money is. You're concentrating by many, many orders of magnitude the attractiveness of the target. You're also concentrating by many orders of magnitude the amount of reliability that has to be provided by that server. It is not only responsible for storing messages temporarily while they are being transmitted, now it also has to hold all those messages while they're waiting for callback. Moreover, for spammers or viruses, for the callback they can always designate another server they control, or themselves. > I still don't see that this is a realistic threat, but as I said, the sending > MTA can pass a SHA1 digest with the envelope data, and thus commit to a > message in exactly the manner you desire. Or would that still be > unsatisfactory for some reason? It's yet another change to the protocol that has to happen, because you're trying to change the fundamental nature of the way e-mail works. It's a patch to an already bad patch, and that doesn't improve the situation. > A SHA1 digest would provide an additional DCC-like data point to evaluate as > part of the policy check, and I can see some value in that. The sender could > also commit up-front to a message size, and that would be useful. Both of > those data points can be verified after download, and the message rejected > due to "data corruption" if the checks fail. These are additional ideas which > can be sensibly built onto the pull-mode base if they are considered > valuable. They would be necessary, but you would need to make them even more complex because you'd have to deal with things like changes in the content-transfer-encoding which change the internal representation of the message, but not the actual content of the message itself. This is the same sort of problem that PGP-signed messages have today. Think about how many mailing lists there are which still break PGP signatures, not to mention less intelligent MTAs, etc.... > From this point on, I'm afraid that you lost me again. I think you're arguing > against a scheme that someone else proposed. I'm attempting to argue that the > smallest possible addition of pull-mode behaviour into SMTP would make it > more robust against many mail-abuse techniques: I don't think you've successfully shown that. Many times there are methods which are suitable at the link layer that are not suitable for end-to-end, or vice-versa. Using a pull-based mechanism has been demonstrated to work for USENET and web discussion groups. But you have yet to prove that you can successfully use this end-to-end mechanism to any benefit for the link-layer (especially since most e-mail is point-to-point today anyway), or that you can successfully turn all Internet e-mail into USENET news or web discussion groups. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 17:31:46 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 RAA05689 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oZ9-0005Vl-PI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:31:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91LVN2u021179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:31:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oZ9-0005VW-L0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:31:23 -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 RAA05674 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oZ7-0005mP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:31:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oZ6-0005mM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:31:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oYn-0005R3-V5; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4oYY-0005QD-AO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:30:46 -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 RAA05645 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oYV-0005lm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:30:43 -0400 Received: from dsl093-191-107.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.191.107] helo=harvee.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oYV-0005lj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:30:43 -0400 Received: from harvee.org (harvee.org [127.0.0.1]) by harvee.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h91LUgfO016657 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:30:43 -0400 Received: FROM harvee.org ([192.168.0.10]) BY harvee.org WITH ESMTP ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:30:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3F7B46E8.50707@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: anti-spam research group Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-Camram: stamp; 0:031001:asrg@ietf.org:c38e522da5e20b89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by harvee.org id h91LUgfO016657 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, 01 Oct 2003 17:28:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I apologize for disappearing on this topic for well but I have been in We= b=20 framework hell. I will probably only pay attention for a short while bef= ore I=20 go back to Sisyphian labors. ---eric Yakov Shafranovich summarized: >=20 > To summarize the article, the following problems apply to sender-pays: more specifically, money based sender-pays. None of these issues exist w= ith=20 proof of work stamp based sender-pays. > 1. The Internet is global - "So implementing Sender Pays would require=20 > an international treaty". Postage in this case becomes an end to end protocol and not a cost of ent= ry to a=20 controlled access monopoly delivery service. All it would require it is = private=20 agreements for various issuers to settle accounts. If anything, there wo= uld be=20 a strong need for government intervention to prevent monopolization of po= stage=20 issuance as has almost happened in the certificate market. > 2. "Micropayments remain a problem." quite true but since this is a closed domain not an issue.. Generating a= coin=20 is no problem. It is purchased from and cleared from the same source. a= lso can=20 be dealt with by settlement agreements between two issuers. > 3. "Payment systems would have to be set up so that innocent parties=20 > wouldn't be stuck covering the cost of other persons' e-mails. Probably= =20 > everyone would have to pay some amount in advance to cover the mail we=20 > might send." think bearer instruments. Mail will not be accepted without a valid coin= . No=20 need for book entry. > 4. "by adding a cost to a message, Sender Pays would certainly impact=20 > the free e-mail business. Such services would have to decide whether to= =20 > pass the costs along or pick up the tab." not necessarily. using a bearer instrument, the service is not an origin= ator of=20 the postage but merely passes it along. One could also have an account = of=20 postage coins with the e-mail service so one could send e-mail while they= are on=20 the road and no longer have access to their stamp pad. > 5. "Here's another interesting problem: allegations have been made that= =20 > there are Internet worms and other attacks that create an open proxy fo= r=20 > spammers on an infected system" - "While this particular form of=20 > hijacking is built on old-fashioned SMTP, it would still suggest that=20 > Sender Pays will require that we first solve the open proxy problem=97y= et=20 > another difficult issue." proxy relaying will have no impact on sender pays systems. They still ha= ve to=20 have a stamp of some form in order to be delivered. The real problem is = a worm=20 that gets into your system and takes over your e-mail client and sends lo= ts of=20 mail to mailboxes in Nigeria. If you compromise 300,000 hosts (like they= did=20 last time), it only takes $3.50 per machine to give you $1 million. ka-c= hing! Now Chairman Bill really can get a dime every time one of his machines ar= e=20 compromised... things he didn't consider: cost of infrastructure. And who pays. invariably the cost of infrastructure is very high because it must be des= igned=20 for peak loads. Additionally, the double spending database must record e= very=20 single issued coin and its state for a given epoch. This is not a small = database. The issuer pays for their infrastructure out of fees tacked onto the issu= ance of=20 stamps. One could make this model more sender pays if the fees were tack= ed onto=20 the redemption of stamps. But in the end, somebody pays and pays a lot. latency of double spending database spammers will double spend. It's important to keep the latency of the do= uble=20 spending database to a minimum which means stamp redemption as soon as th= e mail=20 is received and subsecond update times from stamp redemption to entry in = double=20 spending database. That way the window of opportunity for a double spent= stamp=20 becomes very small. The acceptable size of this window is a function of = how=20 many double spend checks per second one can make of the database. how to cope with inaccessibility of double spending database. since then that is not perfectly reliable, invariably the double spend da= tabase=20 will be unavailable at times. The decision is then whether to hold mail = or pass=20 mail. Both are problematic in different ways. Additionally, if there ar= e=20 multiple network caches of the double spent database providing service to= a=20 greater portion of the net. If they lose connectivity to the double spen= t=20 database, they should go silent and not give potentially false answers. issuer noncooperation some folks might see it as a competitive advantage to have a private curr= ency.=20 They may perceive it as a "lock in" and if they can just get a monopoly, = they=20 will be set for life. What's more likely is that there will be a large number of issuers some o= f which=20 will settle with others and some of which won't. As a result, people pro= bably=20 have dozens of little accounts where postage accumulates. This will trig= ger a=20 market in software to purchase postage from all these different accounts = if=20 there is a sufficient positive balance in any of them thereby solving the= =20 settlement problem with external tools. many issuers will go bankrupt. if anything, this will trigger the most discussion of government regulati= on and=20 a significant loss in confidence in a sender pays by money world. Underf= unded=20 issuers will regularly go bankrupt causing individual losses on the order= of 10=20 or $15 per person. if this happens once or twice to a person. It won't = be a=20 big deal and will push them towards big bank backed issuers. We will see= a=20 similar cycling of fees up and down as we have seen in the personal banki= ng arena. But the threat of people losing money will be the biggest kick in the pan= ts to=20 government regulators to try and "protect people's interests". It probab= ly=20 won't go far if the banking industry steps in and office to provide a sta= ble and=20 safe environment. If anything, you'll see regulation at that point to re= duce=20 competition and freeze out the independents. the loss of confidence is a more serious problem especially during the=20 transitional phase if people get stamps issued by a defunct bank that has= been=20 taken over by a spammer. international regulations or more to the point, transit fees to governments or private parties impo= sed by=20 international regulations. folks may look at all that money flowing arou= nd the=20 net and decide that they want to piece of the action for no other reason = than=20 the traffic is transiting the network. Money is so much fun... ---eric >=20 [1] this is a SWAG number. It's a gut feel based on how long you will le= t a=20 double spending event persist and allow Spam to traverse filters. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 17:49:32 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 RAA06111 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oqK-0006Vl-Qn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:49:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91Ln8qE025023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oqK-0006VW-Lz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06088 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oqI-0005xc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:49:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oqH-0005xZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:49:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oqD-0006TL-G4; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4oq5-0006T8-5C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:48:53 -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 RAA06073 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oq2-0005x7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:48:50 -0400 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oq1-0005x4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:48:49 -0400 Received: from Klokburken2 (h114n2fls20o1051.bredband.comhem.se [81.224.169.114]) by smtp10.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id h91Lmmlq012958; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:48:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001001c3892f$039f5df0$72a9e051@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "Brad Knowles" Cc: References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" 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, 2 Oct 2003 23:49:11 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Knowles" To: "Brett Watson" Cc: "Brad Knowles" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" > > Requiring a callback to fetch the message data makes this approach much > > harder for a spammer, as it would require proxies in both directions: an HTTP > > proxy will not suffice at all, and the longer the callback is delayed, the > > more likely a zombie will have gone offline (at least temporarily), thus > > causing delivery failure. > > I disagree. In the case of zombies, which is becoming more and > more the method of choice, they have complete control of the machine. > They can send out the notices, wait for the callbacks, and then send > the payload. All safe in the knowledge that they control the > machine. Moreover, a network of zombies could easily be configured > so that one zombie designates another as the call back server, and > that process could even be distributed and load-balanced. In a pull system the mail must be pulled from one special IP address. It could be on top of a distributed and load balanced system, as you say, but it must keep that IP address or the mail will not reach the recipient. That is the nice thing with a pull system. You get an IP address that must be valid and together with an efficient real time blacklisting system it would work very well. It is true you do not need a pull system to have a blacklist but since the IP address must be valid a longer time the blacklist works best together with a pull system. I agree fully when you say that some pull servers will be attractiv to hack. In a pull system the best way to avoid blacklists is to hack pull servers. With SMTP you do not have to do it, it is a complete waste of time. That is why I suggested encryption. If the mails are encrypted and the key trown away there will be no point in hacking the pull server. After "decryption" the mails will be unreadable. :-) /DK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 17:57:27 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 RAA06401 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oy1-00079V-CU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h91Lv53W027487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:57:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oy1-00079G-7W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:05 -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 RAA06388 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oxy-00063t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oxy-00063q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4oxw-00075j-GM; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4oxG-00072E-O1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:56:18 -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 RAA06377 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oxD-00063R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:56:16 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4oxD-00063M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:56:15 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.7]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h91Lu6LU016525; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:56:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) From: david nicol To: Phil Miller Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <3F7B3D46.3040807@zemos.net> References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> <3F7B3D46.3040807@zemos.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065045365.1300.31.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: 01 Oct 2003 16:56:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's what I sent the author: Hello, I am pleased to see an article listing arguments against sender-pays systems. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272889,00.asp Thanks! Here are some hopefully cogent answers to your objections: 1: I do not consider it a problem when my e-mail receiving server in Kansas City refuses to accept messages from strangers in Belarus who don't know me well enough to include a "magic phrase" with their introductory note. 2: Micropayments are only a problem due to fear, uncertainty, doubt and greed on the part of established payment system players. The tipjar.com micropayment infrastructure has been happily processing payments of single pennies since 1996. No, it hasn't made any money, but if it ever reaches its break-even point it will. 3: You seem to think that a sender-pays system would have to be a mandated top-down system that would replace all current systems in a momentous, sparky revolution. The pay2send infrastructure plays nicely with current e-mail protocols, blocking postage-due messages with language that current e-mail systems understand. When a service provider joins the pay2send sender-pays infrastructure, that service provider's customers can then have their micropayment bill included with their regular monthly bill, much the way that a long distance bill is included with the monthly bill for a telephone land-line. Thank you very much again for the thoughtful article. Would you accept a position on the pay2send technical advisory board? David Nicol -- david nicol / get a spamless forwarding address at http://www.pay2send.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 20:12:51 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 UAA11538 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4r51-0006Cf-Pc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h920CRQ5023846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:12:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4r51-0006CW-Hk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:27 -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 UAA11487 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4r4z-0007PU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4r4z-0007PR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4r4c-000642-Gj; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4r4C-00063U-Q2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:11:36 -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 UAA11478 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4r4A-0007PD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:11:34 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4r4A-0007PA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:11:34 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h920BU67013840; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:11:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001001c3892f$039f5df0$72a9e051@Klokburken2> References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310012000.38444.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <001001c3892f$039f5df0$72a9e051@Klokburken2> To: "Dag Kihlman" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: "Brad Knowles" , 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, 2 Oct 2003 01:58:58 +0200 At 11:49 PM +0200 2003/10/02, Dag Kihlman wrote: > It is true you do not need a pull system to have a blacklist > but since the IP address must be valid a longer time the blacklist works > best together with a pull system. The same can be said for existing use of greylisting plus an enforced delay before you will accept the message, in combination with black lists and message content reporting systems. You offer no advantages here, for all the extra costs you would be imposing. > I agree fully when you say that some pull servers will be attractiv to hack. > In a pull system the best way to avoid blacklists is to hack pull servers. > With SMTP you do not have to do it, it is a complete waste of time. That is > why I suggested encryption. If the mails are encrypted and the key trown > away there will be no point in hacking the pull server. After "decryption" > the mails will be unreadable. :-) It is sufficiently difficult to properly implement cryptographic message signing, much less message encryption. Moreover, the existing systems implement this sort of thing where the spare CPU is most available -- on the client. You would be increasing by untold orders of magnitude the amount of message encryption that would be required (above what is happening today), and you would be doing it centrally -- the one place in the architecture that has the biggest CPU crunch already. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 20:22:31 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 UAA11697 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rEK-0006ST-Gz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h920M4N3024821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:22:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rEK-0006SG-CI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11682 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rEI-0007Tg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rEH-0007Td-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rEG-0006Oh-Kz; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:22:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rEF-0006OW-T3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:21:59 -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 UAA11679 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rED-0007Ta-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:21:57 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rED-0007TX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:21:57 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2901820; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:21:58 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Terry Sullivan" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:03:18 -0400 At 12:21 PM -0500 10/1/03, Terry Sullivan wrote: >Data from multiple independent sources (including Liam Meany, Scott >Nelson, and myself) indicate that "otherwise identical" trap >addresses receive *vastly* different amounts of spam traffic. This >unexplained variance in spam traffic is *very* large and all of it is >"statistically 'bad' variance." That "bad variance" at least I had reason to think about this yesterday. I was going over the records from our spam filter, and somewhere.com's email in particular. I discovered that one single spammer (see http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL6857 for details) attempted to initiate a connection with our anti-spam proxy server 500,000 times over a day and half or so (4 connection attempts a second, non-stop). It's frequently been said that there are really only about 200 major spammers. And certainly there are fewer types of spamming software than that, and fewer sources of target addresses. I think we get fooled somewhat by the large amount of spam and assume that we are dealing with a very large sample size; one which should therefore show standard statistical distributions. If in fact the actual number of senders (or software/target combinations) is quite small, than we will in fact *not* see standard distributions--even if the volume of spam itself is very high. What we are sampling is not spam, but spammer targets/techniques. Accurately measuring such a small population may require a much greater distribution of spamtraps. And it's definitely not a random population. Spammers specialize. There are some who do nothing but AOL accounts. And as my experience suggests, there are apparently some who are simply broken. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 1 20:31:31 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 UAA11960 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rN6-00078w-4E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:31:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h920V85x027452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:31:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rN5-00078h-W2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:31:08 -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 UAA11896 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rN3-0007YU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:31:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rN3-0007YR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:31:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rN0-0006zJ-7C; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4rMi-0006yC-DE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:30:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11874 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:30:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rMg-0007Y0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:30:42 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4rMf-0007Xx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:30:41 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-98-157-216.dc.dc.cox.net [68.98.157.216]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id BBAE41808E; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:21:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <012001c3887c$6ce75cd0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 V6.00.2800.1165 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: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:30:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I don't think that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to carry various protocol information. Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a recommendation rather than a must, shall... > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Kay > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to Eric/Yakov's > draft > at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt . > ASRG owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I > personally thank you for furthering an important area of > interoperability. > > On loop avoidance section, specifically: > > "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended > that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, > for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's > email address as the sender of the challenge message." > > We disgree. > > Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the > sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's > automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his challenge > is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays or > filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his > challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be invoked, > possibly creating unecessary overhead. > > Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally > interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the > whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging other > challenges. > > Peter > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 21:54:43 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 VAA14227 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4sfb-0002YY-RX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h921sJjm009820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:54:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4sfb-0002YJ-ND for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:19 -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 VAA14211 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sfY-0000a3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sfY-0000Zz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4sfJ-0002Uf-50; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4seZ-0002Tr-DS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:53:15 -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 VAA14174 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4seW-0000ZK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:53:12 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4seV-0000Yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:53:11 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'ASRG list'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Is it the only way? 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, 1 Oct 2003 21:25:33 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:30 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Is it the only way? > > > I want to pose a question to the group. The charter of the ASRG > concentrates on the notion of consent for email. However, we need to > look at whether this is the only approach to controlling spam: > > "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. " > > Even if the consent framework is completed, is it really the > only way to > look at spam? Perhaps, we should as many have suggested, > reformulate the > charter of the group to be more generic - to perhaps look at other > possibilities beside consent. Consent-based communication approach was proposed as a generalization of the problem and based on the broader focus allowed by defining spam as unwanted messages. When you say other possibilities, are you suggesting more specific views or a more generalized view? Such as what? We had, I believe, this very same conversation on the mailing list about three months ago. Please see: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/4830 > As of now the charter does include this: > > "ASRG will investigate the spam problem as a large-scale network > problem. The ASRG will begin its work by developing a taxonomy of the > problem and the proposed solutions. This taxonomy should > involve casting > the spam problem into different perspectives, such as examining the > similarities between spam and denial-of-service; spam and intrusion > detection/prevention; and spam and authentication, authorization, and > accounting." > > I think we would need another effort to take place parallel with the > consent framework - an evaluation of whether it is proper to > add consent > to email. What do you mean by "whether it is proper to add consent to email"? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:07:34 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 WAA14562 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ss3-0003Cd-G0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9227A82012295 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ss1-0003C9-Ni for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14558 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sry-0000id-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sry-0000ia-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4srt-000348-Ov; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4sr3-000332-Rq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:09 -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 WAA14533 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sr0-0000hh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sr0-0000hD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:06 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM30096KXP3KH@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:03:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Is it the only way? In-reply-to: To: Paul Judge Cc: "'ASRG list'" Message-id: <3F7B8751.4010704@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 22:02:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Paul Judge wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:30 PM >>To: ASRG list >>Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Is it the only way? >>As of now the charter does include this: >> >>"ASRG will investigate the spam problem as a large-scale network >>problem. The ASRG will begin its work by developing a taxonomy of the >>problem and the proposed solutions. This taxonomy should >>involve casting >>the spam problem into different perspectives, such as examining the >>similarities between spam and denial-of-service; spam and intrusion >>detection/prevention; and spam and authentication, authorization, and >>accounting." >> >>I think we would need another effort to take place parallel with the >>consent framework - an evaluation of whether it is proper to >>add consent >>to email. > > > What do you mean by "whether it is proper to add consent to email"? > The current email system does not have the notion of consent built in unlike IM systems. An email message being sent via SMTP is usually delivered at its destination, and the receiver usually does not have the option of refusing the email until it has been delivered. In the instant messaging (IM) world, there is a built in notion of consent as per RFC 2778. People can refuse having them being added to a buddy list, people can block messages, etc (some capabilities only present in some IM systems, and some are only theoretical but appear in the RFC). With the charter and the consent framework, we are inserting the concept of consent into email. Now suddenly email does not get to its destination - rather its dissected by anti-spam tools depending on the receiver's consent. Is this the only correct view of the situation? There have been others who are suggesting that perhaps it is not necessary to introduce consent into email since the side-effects and breakdown in communications will be too great. Rather, the suggestion is to look at spam as an engineering issue and leave it at that. Personally, I feel that the consent approach is correct. However, I wanted to float this thought to get a feel if anyone else feels that the consent approach is not the correct one, and can provide alternative views. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:07:39 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 WAA14577 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ss3-0003Cg-Mg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9227AkG012294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ss1-0003C0-EQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14555 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sry-0000iZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4sry-0000iW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4srv-000352-8Y; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:07:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4srg-00033c-DY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:48 -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 WAA14546 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4srd-0000iC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4src-0000hk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:44 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM3008H2XUAR3@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:06:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance In-reply-to: <012001c3887c$6ce75cd0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> To: Eric Dean Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F7B880F.6030808@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <012001c3887c$6ce75cd0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 22:06:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Can this be left as a recommendation but not required, so the implementors will be left to decide? Or do we need to make a decision on this? Also, would this be relevant to the BCP area? Eric Dean wrote: > If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I don't think > that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to carry various > protocol information. > > Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a recommendation > rather than a must, shall... > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Peter > >>Kay >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >> >>I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to Eric/Yakov's >>draft >>at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt . >>ASRG owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I >>personally thank you for furthering an important area of >>interoperability. >> >>On loop avoidance section, specifically: >> >>"For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended >>that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, >>for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's >>email address as the sender of the challenge message." >> >>We disgree. >> >>Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the >>sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's >>automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his > > challenge > >>is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays > > or > >>filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his >>challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be > > invoked, > >>possibly creating unecessary overhead. >> >>Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally >>interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the >>whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging > > other > >>challenges. >> >>Peter >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:17:47 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 WAA14954 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4t1w-0003sY-0Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:17:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h922HNTu014904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:17:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4t1v-0003sJ-St for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:17:23 -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 WAA14925 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4t1s-0000rt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:17:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4t1s-0000rp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:17:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4t1Z-0003lf-Io; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4t1S-0003ki-Er for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:16:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14909 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4t1P-0000rG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:16:51 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4t1O-0000rB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:16:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 21200 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 02:16:41 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 02:16:41 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Markus Stumpf From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <20030929153522.GE91943@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:16:39 -0500 At 10:35 AM 9/29/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: >We have mailservers that host some 1000 domains each with 5-500 users. >Same problems apply to big ESPs that might implement MPC based on users. >As one message can have multiple RCPTs the server would always have to >send 250-MPC-ALLOW */*, because it cannot signal an MPC unless it knows >about the recipients email address. I added this language to the next draft version: If there is no MPC declaration in the EHLO reply, "ALLOW */*" is implied and the client may proceed. > >From your examples: > S: 250-MPC DENY com/* ALLOW com/individual ALLOW com/confirmed >The Client knows about MPC classification of the message it is trying to >send. Maybe you should add a short paragraph about what the Client is >considered to do, if it knows the messages doesn't meet the server >criteria. I assume you want the client to quit the connection >immediately and treat it like a "all recipients permanent failure". I also added this language: If the MPC value of message to be delivered matches any DENY declaration in the EHLO reply, the client MUST issue a QUIT command and refrain from retrying the message, and the client SHOULD deliver a corresponding bounce message to the sender. Thanks for noticing those. >Roaming users + MPC >As a roaming user I might want to relay a email with a MPC that >violates the general server classification (which is IMHO pretty valid, >even more if the remote server/recipient will accept it). I am missing a >specification on how to handle this. I don't really understand the question. Why would a user relay a message? >Backup Servers >How should MPC work with backup servers implementing stronger MPC than >the destination host does. MPC is policy-neutral, and doesn't have a concept of "stronger" or "weaker", perhaps you mean "more restrictive"? Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? >IMHO the biggest problem with your MPC idea is that you reduce the >specification to end-to-end connections, but these are relevant only to >a very small fraction of every days Internet email connections. Most >connections are client <> server <> server ... server <> client >and this makes server MPC unusable at all. In AMTP, a message cannot be relayed from one "public" MTA to another "public" MTA. In your example, all but one transaction would be accomplished with private network connections (i.e., using privately-signed certificates). >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >TLS/X.509 >Just for clarification ... >Do you want to enforce both encryption (TLS) and authentification (X.509)? >Authentification via X.509 doesn't necessarily need encryption. Thus you >could "gain trust" without TLS just by exchanging/validating X.509 certs. As I understand it, the TLS handshake includes logic to verify that the presenter of the certificate has the corresponding private key for the certificate. I don't see an easy way to do that without TLS. >Why don't you also define authentification/trust policies for the receiving >host? This would add additional security and address the problem of >rogue receiving MTAs intercepting emails. I had that in the first draft, but I became convinced that it was unnecessary. Part of the goal of AMTP is to produce the least-restrictive specification that still provides the required benefits. Unless I'm missing something, there is not a significant problem with rogue receiving MTAs hijacking email. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >SRV records >Why do you want to make MX records obsolete? It wasn't a goal to obsolete MX records, and the SRV records weren't in the original draft. But it solves a significant problem: How to transition from SMTP to AMTP without the overhead of attempting both protocols for a lot of deliveries. If both protocols were to use MX records, the only way to know if a server MTA speaks AMTP would be to try the AMTP port #. That would fail often, especially at the beginning of the transition period. With SRV records, you will know which protocol to use before you connect. The side benefit is that the MX RR was a kludge and AMTP will allow it to eventually die of natural causes. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >AMTP + SMTP >For (at least) a grace period AMTP and SMTP have to life together. >How should a AMTP capable sending MTA behave? What if the destination >signals AMTP capability via SRV records but the connection cannot be >established. Should it fallback to SMTP? That's an implementation detail, and I think that what you described is a smart behavior and will likely prevail during the transition period. On the other hand I can see where some servers may not want to do that, so I think it's best to leave it out of the specification. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I've added your name to the acknowledgements section in the next draft. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:33:39 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 WAA15250 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tHD-0004TK-4w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:33:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h922XBHf017184 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:33:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tHC-0004T5-VF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:33:11 -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 WAA15241 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tH9-0000yn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:33:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tH9-0000yk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:33:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tH3-0004Qv-Ju; Wed, 01 Oct 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 1A4tGS-0004Q7-VN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:32:25 -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 WAA15220 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tGP-0000yc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:32:21 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tGO-0000yZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:32:20 -0400 Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105] helo=chromatix.demon.co.uk) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A4tGO-0006Z3-3W; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:32:20 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Andrew Akehurst , "Pete (Madscientist)" To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <3F7B3D32.8080501@solidmatrix.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, 2 Oct 2003 03:32:18 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing >>> a policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of >>> communications >> And this, I think, is the part which hasn't really been addressed yet >> - at least, not by itself. I think the assumption has been that >> it'll mostly live in the MUA, and is therefore safe to leave as a >> implementation detail. Are you suggesting that the Policy >> Enforcement should mostly live on the MTA, and therefore the >> recipient's MUA must express consent (really, filtering preferences) >> by communicating with the MTA? > > The choice of where it lives is left ot the implementators. It maybe a > MUA that is also doing the spam processing, it could be a MUA > communicating with an MTA, it could be a MUA communicating with an > anti-spam tools, or it could be a dedicated GUI or webpage > communicating with anti-spam tools or MTAs. All possibilies are open > and we are not restricting to any of them. OK, so you're saying that we need some kind of standard group of settings - I'd suggest a standard file format which can be interchanged between implementations - and a protocol to communicate those settings *where necessary*. >> I think the "mechanisms" as I listed would be orthogonal to the >> "components" that you speak of - so instead of placing them into one >> category or the other, we have to see which mechanisms need part of >> their implementation in each component. > > You are correct about orthogonal nature of this - there are some tools > that will only fit one category, while others will cross over. > >>> Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components >>> with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. >> >> No... only two of them attempt to "trace" the source of the message. >> The remainder are used to find out about the "worth" of the message >> itself. The final filtering decision is presumably based upon >> information from all of the mechanisms. > > I would think that a source tracking component category would apply to > e-postage as well, specifically when verifying whether the e-stamp is > valid and the authority that issued it is valid as well. Not necessarily. Conceptually, an e-postage system could preserve the anonymity of the sender, as all the issuer really has to say is whether the stamp's valid or not. Also conceptually, e-stamps could have intrinsic value - and could therefore be re-used for future messages by the recipient. That's not to suggest such implementations would be easy, however... >> It would be overall better if proposal authors were more aware of the >> Consent Framework, and were thus able to design their mechanisms as >> single-purpose plugins to it, instead of jack-of-all-trades >> megaproposals. > > Awareness of the consent framework may have been bad because of the > "opaque" nature of the document. There are some proposal guidelines in > the works that will include a requirement to consider the consent > framework. HOWEVER, as per my other post it is possible that there are > other ways to look at spam solutions beside consent. Noted. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:40:33 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 WAA15571 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tNy-0005Od-Gc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:40:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h922eAwf020735 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:40:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tNw-0005OM-Aw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:40:08 -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 WAA15531 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tNs-00015K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:40:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tNs-00015H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:40:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tNr-0005Kk-5l; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:40:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tNd-0005Jz-Hc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:39:49 -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 WAA15524 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tNa-000158-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:39:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tNZ-00014F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:39:45 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM300140ZD9Y8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:39:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer In-reply-to: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Andrew Akehurst , "Pete (Madscientist)" Message-id: <3F7B8FC6.5010207@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 22:39:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan Morton wrote: >>>> o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing >>>> a policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of >>>> communications > > >>> And this, I think, is the part which hasn't really been addressed yet >>> - at least, not by itself. I think the assumption has been that >>> it'll mostly live in the MUA, and is therefore safe to leave as a >>> implementation detail. Are you suggesting that the Policy >>> Enforcement should mostly live on the MTA, and therefore the >>> recipient's MUA must express consent (really, filtering preferences) >>> by communicating with the MTA? >> >> >> The choice of where it lives is left ot the implementators. It maybe a >> MUA that is also doing the spam processing, it could be a MUA >> communicating with an MTA, it could be a MUA communicating with an >> anti-spam tools, or it could be a dedicated GUI or webpage >> communicating with anti-spam tools or MTAs. All possibilies are open >> and we are not restricting to any of them. > > > OK, so you're saying that we need some kind of standard group of > settings - I'd suggest a standard file format which can be interchanged > between implementations - and a protocol to communicate those settings > *where necessary*. > A standard file format and a protocol is necessary. Standard settings are not absolutely necessary but would probably be a set of basic stuff common to most systems, with the possibilities open to expansion. Both the format and the protocol need to be extensible as well. Keep in mind the example that Gordon mentioned with SPITBOL - the extension mechanism needs to be flexible enough to accommodate such scheme. >>> I think the "mechanisms" as I listed would be orthogonal to the >>> "components" that you speak of - so instead of placing them into one >>> category or the other, we have to see which mechanisms need part of >>> their implementation in each component. >> >> >> You are correct about orthogonal nature of this - there are some tools >> that will only fit one category, while others will cross over. >> >>>> Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components >>>> with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. >>> >>> >>> No... only two of them attempt to "trace" the source of the message. >>> The remainder are used to find out about the "worth" of the message >>> itself. The final filtering decision is presumably based upon >>> information from all of the mechanisms. >> >> >> I would think that a source tracking component category would apply to >> e-postage as well, specifically when verifying whether the e-stamp is >> valid and the authority that issued it is valid as well. > > > Not necessarily. Conceptually, an e-postage system could preserve the > anonymity of the sender, as all the issuer really has to say is whether > the stamp's valid or not. Also conceptually, e-stamps could have > intrinsic value - and could therefore be re-used for future messages by > the recipient. That's not to suggest such implementations would be > easy, however... > Right - anonymous digital cash, forgot about that. I think that anonymous digital cash has a bank signature on it also, it is just issued anonymously. If e-stamps actually have an intrinsic value, then they might belong in a different category. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 22:48:29 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 WAA15777 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tVd-0005or-Qr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h922m5uP022360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:48:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tVd-0005oY-MN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15746 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVa-0001Aq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVZ-0001An-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tVZ-0005l4-BH; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tVR-0005kJ-1U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:47:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15739 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVN-0001Ad-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:47:49 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVN-0001AZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:47:49 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2902205; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:47:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <012001c3887c$6ce75cd0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> References: <012001c3887c$6ce75cd0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> To: "Eric Dean" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , 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, 1 Oct 2003 22:46:15 -0400 At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: >If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I don't think >that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to carry various >protocol information. Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate with more than just other CR systems. As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support system. Our spam filters validated the sending email address by doing a MAIL FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One went to the support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't have the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge that as well). The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it gets a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that stunt). That reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no damage there, just annoyance. So here's the count of messages sent. User - 1 Support System - 2 CR System - 2 And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear out. And the user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their support request until it moves through the queue to a human. At which point our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the challenge. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 1 22:49:28 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 WAA15831 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tWZ-0005xC-9q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:49:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h922n3IE022880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:49:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tWZ-0005wx-5k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:49:03 -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 WAA15811 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tWV-0001C8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tWV-0001C3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tWW-0005tC-VW; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tVv-0005sG-JN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15750 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVs-0001Ay-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:20 -0400 Received: from phaze.fireserve.net ([207.109.249.2] ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tVr-0001Av-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:48:19 -0400 Received: from fireserve.net (dh0020.moore-s.fireserve.net [207.109.249.149]) by phaze.fireserve.net (8.12.10/linuxconf) with ESMTP id h922pH5i002586; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7B91DB.8070105@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kee Hinckley CC: Terry Sullivan , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.798, required 6, AWL, BAYES_00) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Oct 2003 19:47:55 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > I think we get fooled somewhat by the large amount of spam and assume > that we are dealing with a very large sample size; one which should > therefore show standard statistical distributions. If in fact the > actual number of senders (or software/target combinations) is quite > small, than we will in fact *not* see standard distributions--even if > the volume of spam itself is very high. What we are sampling is not > spam, but spammer targets/techniques. Accurately measuring such a > small population may require a much greater distribution of > spamtraps. And it's definitely not a random population. Spammers > specialize. There are some who do nothing but AOL accounts. And as > my experience suggests, there are apparently some who are simply broken. Well, there are just that many dedicated spammers, then I personally would make the assumption that at least one of them is on this list. I know if that were MY business, **I'd** be here. -- "You are behaving like a man", is an insult from some women, a compliment from an good woman. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 23:01:41 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 XAA16121 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tiR-0006FC-Oa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:01:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9231JjC023996 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:01:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tiR-0006Ex-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:01:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16118 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tiO-0001KD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:01:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tiN-0001KA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:01:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4tiA-0006B3-NP; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4the-0006AF-ND for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:00:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16096 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4thb-0001Jl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:00:27 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4tha-0001Ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:00:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 26159 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 03:00:27 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 03:00:27 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <3F77B165.4000401@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:00:07 -0500 At 11:13 PM 9/28/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >It would be great if you can run your proposal past those two checklists, >and include the results inside the main draft instead of the separate FAQ. I read the documents you referred to and applied what I thought was relevant when I did my research before writing the current draft. I did not write a point-by-point interlinear analysis of AMTP with respect to the documents you cited, and regrettably I don't see how I can get that done any time soon. I am preparing another draft and I'm busy writing the proof-of-concept code. AMTP is on track, in spite of a heavy day-job work load, and I am pleased with the momentum I have going. OTOH, comments from this group and the other groups I've been working with have been very helpful. I appreciate that and thank you for it. Adjustments are being made to the draft, and specific acknowledgements are included there. >This way we can evaluate the impact of the proposal easier and can have >the information in the document itself, instead of a separate FAQ. Yours is a research group, and as such its mission is naturally academic. The AMTP draft is a protocol specification. Its mission is practical: to present a clear and succinct description of the AMTP protocol so that people can build compliant and compatible implementations. I don't see that an analysis such as that you suggested would support the practical goal of a protocol specification. Your group is evaluating AMTP against the goals set out in your charter documents. That's what the ASRG is here for, and I appreciate it. >Second, I would like to ask if you can clarify for us whether your >proposal seeks to replace SMTP completely. Section 3 of your draft says: Yes, AMTP is intended as a replacement of SMTP. It is also substantially derivative of SMTP, a design decision intended to ease transition. >" The idea of replacing SMTP is appealing because it > permits thinking in terms of creating an infrastructure > that has accountability and restrictions built in. > Unfortunately an installed base the size of the > Internet is not likely to make such a change anytime > soon. It seems far more likely that successful spam > control mechanisms will be introduced as increments to > the existing Internet mail service." I am acutely aware of this issue and AMTP addresses it by maintaining the overall design and command set of SMTP. AMTP is substantially derivative of SMTP and as such the transition should be, not entirely trivial, but as close as possible without sacrificing its operational advantages. >In particular we would like to consider whether it would be more viable to >reformulate your protocol as an ESMTP extension rather than a replacement >for SMTP. I considered that approach carefully. Ultimately I realized that the SMTP protocol REQUIRES (in the sense of RFC2119) a level of promiscuity that would prevent AMTP from accomplishing its goals. I spent many hours on transitional planning before I wrote the first draft, and I am working on documents to describe the transition process. In short, once I have working code I will provide tools to make the adoption of AMTP sufficiently painless that I expect it to be adopted, gradually, by a sufficient number of hosts to constitute a critical mass. Time will tell of course, but I have yet to see any argument that convinces me otherwise. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 23:24:36 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 XAA16830 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4u4Y-0007le-GI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:24:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h923OAWV029852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:24:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4u4Y-0007lP-AL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16814 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4u4W-0001bh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:24:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4u4W-0001be-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:24:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4u4P-0007ip-Mc; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4u3z-0007iI-QY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:23:35 -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 XAA16793 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4u3x-0001b2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:23:33 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4u3x-0001az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:23:33 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2902303; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:23:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Markus Stumpf , 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: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:23:10 -0400 At 9:16 PM -0500 10/1/03, Bill Weinman wrote: >MPC is policy-neutral, and doesn't have a concept of "stronger" or >"weaker", perhaps you mean "more restrictive"? > >Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? Because they aren't always provided by the same company. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 1 23:41:30 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 XAA17297 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uKx-000090-QA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h923f7Ef000548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:41:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uKx-00008l-LL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:07 -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 XAA17286 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uKv-0001mk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uKv-0001mh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uKr-00006W-OB; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uKP-00005v-8m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:40:33 -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 XAA17263 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uKN-0001m3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:40:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uKM-0001lQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:40:30 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM4001FD26IXO@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:40:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3F7B9E07.4010908@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.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, 01 Oct 2003 23:39:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bill Weinman wrote: > At 11:13 PM 9/28/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> Second, I would like to ask if you can clarify for us whether your >> proposal seeks to replace SMTP completely. > > Yes, AMTP is intended as a replacement of SMTP. It is also substantially > derivative of SMTP, a design decision intended to ease transition. First of all Bill, please keep in mind that we are not out to get you here, rather we have seen the idea of replacing SMTP being discussed many times before (check the archives) and there are many reasons against it. We would consider this step, IF determined to be necessary, as a long term solution skin to deployment of DNS-SEC or IPv6. Second, are you aware of other efforts underway to provide a protocol to replace SMTP. Especially the following: AMDP - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fakih-amdp-00.txt AMTP - http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt AMTP - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crouzet-amtp-00.txt Pull proposals such as IM2000, etc. There are also many additional proposals mentioned in the list archive (use gmane.org to search). > >> " The idea of replacing SMTP is appealing because it >> permits thinking in terms of creating an infrastructure >> that has accountability and restrictions built in. >> Unfortunately an installed base the size of the >> Internet is not likely to make such a change anytime >> soon. It seems far more likely that successful spam >> control mechanisms will be introduced as increments to >> the existing Internet mail service." > > > I am acutely aware of this issue and AMTP addresses it by maintaining > the overall design and command set of SMTP. AMTP is substantially > derivative of SMTP and as such the transition should be, not entirely > trivial, but as close as possible without sacrificing its operational > advantages. > I want you to reconsider this issue again. Keep in mind who wrote the technical considerations document where this has been taken from - Dave Crocker. He is the same person who wrote RFC 822 and has a tremendous experience with email. He had also written additional comments (http://news.com.com/2009-1081_3-5060650.html) on the idea, specifically: " o E-mail authentication mechanisms already exist. They are not used very much. Why would a new mechanism fare better? o When there is real consensus about the functional changes that are needed for e-mail, we can start deciding what technical changes will achieve them. Only when we find that we cannot modify SMTP to provide them will it make sense to consider replacing SMTP. o Authenticating an e-mail sender will not prevent spam. It might reduce some kinds of it, but a great deal of spam is from people who are perfectly happy to be correctly identified. " He has stated also that: "In general, solving spam will be easy--as long as we ignore the installed base of users; the human side of living with the changes; the need to scale use by everyone, everywhere; and the possibility that spammers can easily work around any particular prevention mechanism." It would be very useful to the group in general if we had an analysis of whether SMTP needs to be replaced in line with Dave's suggestion above. Replacing SMTP is an architechtural issue for the entire Internet. The Internet Architechture Board (IAB) which is above both the IRTF and the IETF is aware of the issue and will be evaluating it, so this evaluation will have input from them. >> In particular we would like to consider whether it would be more >> viable to reformulate your protocol as an ESMTP extension rather than >> a replacement for SMTP. > > > I considered that approach carefully. Ultimately I realized that the > SMTP protocol REQUIRES (in the sense of RFC2119) a level of promiscuity > that would prevent AMTP from accomplishing its goals. > > I spent many hours on transitional planning before I wrote the first > draft, and I am working on documents to describe the transition process. > In short, once I have working code I will provide tools to make the > adoption of AMTP sufficiently painless that I expect it to be adopted, > gradually, by a sufficient number of hosts to constitute a critical > mass. Time will tell of course, but I have yet to see any argument that > convinces me otherwise. > I am assuming that you are planning on submitting this protocol as a standard to the IETF or as an RFC. In that case, I would suggest that you address the deployment and adoption issues in great detail. Additionally, the IAB will be considering the issue at some point and it is important to watch what they will come up with. > --- > Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. BTW, I love the quote :) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 1 23:42:25 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 XAA17329 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uLq-0000OX-II for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:42:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h923g2G9001511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uLq-0000OI-CJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:42:02 -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 XAA17322 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:41:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uLo-0001nE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:42:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uLn-0001nB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uLo-0000HQ-EB; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uLT-0000E2-KN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:39 -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 XAA17313 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uLR-0001mx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uLQ-0001mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM4001KH286XO@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:41:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3F7B9E3B.1000201@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.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, 01 Oct 2003 23:40:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bill Weinman wrote: > At 11:13 PM 9/28/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> Second, I would like to ask if you can clarify for us whether your >> proposal seeks to replace SMTP completely. > > Yes, AMTP is intended as a replacement of SMTP. It is also substantially > derivative of SMTP, a design decision intended to ease transition. First of all Bill, please keep in mind that we are not out to get you here, rather we have seen the idea of replacing SMTP being discussed many times before (check the archives) and there are many reasons against it. We would consider this step, IF determined to be necessary, as a long term solution akin to deployment of DNS-SEC or IPv6. Second, are you aware of other efforts underway to provide a protocol to replace SMTP. Especially the following: AMDP - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fakih-amdp-00.txt AMTP - http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt AMTP - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crouzet-amtp-00.txt Pull proposals such as IM2000, etc. There are also many additional proposals mentioned in the list archive (use gmane.org to search). > >> " The idea of replacing SMTP is appealing because it >> permits thinking in terms of creating an infrastructure >> that has accountability and restrictions built in. >> Unfortunately an installed base the size of the >> Internet is not likely to make such a change anytime >> soon. It seems far more likely that successful spam >> control mechanisms will be introduced as increments to >> the existing Internet mail service." > > > I am acutely aware of this issue and AMTP addresses it by maintaining > the overall design and command set of SMTP. AMTP is substantially > derivative of SMTP and as such the transition should be, not entirely > trivial, but as close as possible without sacrificing its operational > advantages. > I want you to reconsider this issue again. Keep in mind who wrote the technical considerations document where this has been taken from - Dave Crocker. He is the same person who wrote RFC 822 and has a tremendous experience with email. He had also written additional comments (http://news.com.com/2009-1081_3-5060650.html) on the idea, specifically: " o E-mail authentication mechanisms already exist. They are not used very much. Why would a new mechanism fare better? o When there is real consensus about the functional changes that are needed for e-mail, we can start deciding what technical changes will achieve them. Only when we find that we cannot modify SMTP to provide them will it make sense to consider replacing SMTP. o Authenticating an e-mail sender will not prevent spam. It might reduce some kinds of it, but a great deal of spam is from people who are perfectly happy to be correctly identified. " He has stated also that: "In general, solving spam will be easy--as long as we ignore the installed base of users; the human side of living with the changes; the need to scale use by everyone, everywhere; and the possibility that spammers can easily work around any particular prevention mechanism." It would be very useful to the group in general if we had an analysis of whether SMTP needs to be replaced in line with Dave's suggestion above. Replacing SMTP is an architectural issue for the entire Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) which is above both the IRTF and the IETF is aware of the issue and will be evaluating it, so this evaluation will have input from them. >> In particular we would like to consider whether it would be more >> viable to reformulate your protocol as an ESMTP extension rather than >> a replacement for SMTP. > > > I considered that approach carefully. Ultimately I realized that the > SMTP protocol REQUIRES (in the sense of RFC2119) a level of promiscuity > that would prevent AMTP from accomplishing its goals. > > I spent many hours on transitional planning before I wrote the first > draft, and I am working on documents to describe the transition process. > In short, once I have working code I will provide tools to make the > adoption of AMTP sufficiently painless that I expect it to be adopted, > gradually, by a sufficient number of hosts to constitute a critical > mass. Time will tell of course, but I have yet to see any argument that > convinces me otherwise. > I am assuming that you are planning on submitting this protocol as a standard to the IETF or as an RFC. In that case, I would suggest that you address the deployment and adoption issues in great detail. Additionally, the IAB will be considering the issue at some point and it is important to watch what they will come up with. > --- > Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. BTW, I love the quote :) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 00:09:42 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 AAA18120 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4umE-0001lE-MJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:09:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9249I9K006762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:09:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4umE-0001kz-HX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:09:18 -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 AAA18084 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4umC-00022h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:09:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4umB-00022e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:09:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4ulx-0001hC-NZ; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A4ul6-0001eH-Nk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:08:08 -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 AAA18049 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ul4-00021d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:08:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4ul3-00021L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:08:05 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM4001AA3GKX4@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 04:07:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) In-reply-to: To: Terry Sullivan , ASRG list Message-id: <3F7BA47C.5050003@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:07:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Terry Sullivan wrote: > This particular message actually crosses a couple of different area > boundaries. (I assume the message will be recharacterized if/however > the chairs see fit.) > > A little while back, I posted a message solicting ideas for a kind of > "shakedown run"--a "pilot project" that could be run in a short > period of time, and I promised to summarize the results back to the > list. > > Well, I received a total of two responses. One proposed an > analysis-and-characterization of "passive" (i.e., archival) data (an > excellent proposal, but not quite suitable for "shakedown" purposes). > The second suggested studying greylisting along the lines of evan > harris' previous work. I've had a brief flurry of off-list > correspondence with folks regarding greylisting, and any pilot > project would, among other things, need to establish its own baseline > data. > > Again, the whole idea behind doing a pilot study was to discover what > special requirements or problems anti-spam research studies might > face. And I think we've discovered the first: trap addresses and > their traffic. > > Data from multiple independent sources (including Liam Meany, Scott > Nelson, and myself) indicate that "otherwise identical" trap > addresses receive *vastly* different amounts of spam traffic. This > unexplained variance in spam traffic is *very* large and all of it is > "statistically 'bad' variance." That "bad variance" at least > potentially compromises any ASRG effort that might use trap > addresses. (Without some sort of "balancing" in trap address > traffic, experimental effects might need to be as as large as an > order-of-magnitude in order to achieve "statistical significance.") > > I can imagine a couple of possible solutions (though there may also > be others I haven't thought of). One might be for ASRG to "borrow" > trap addresses from large organizations/ISPs who were (or at least > might be?) willing to share. The other is for ASRG to have an > independent trap address maintenance effort. I floated this latter > idea a while back, and it generated almost no interest at all. > > Obviously, a trap-address maintenance effort would be privvy to > extremely sensitive data, and would probably need to be a handful of > people (at most), whose efforts where "closed" to the larger group. > Ultimately, the need/desired outcome would be on-demand availability > of an appropriate number of comparably-trafficked trap addresses for > research purposes, said addresses to be selected randomly from a > larger pool. > > Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a need for a some sort of > active (though not necessarily particularly time-consuming) trap > address maintenance effort. Otherwise, the only real opportunity for > *research* (as opposed to debate) lies in analysis/characterization > of archival data. > What is the bottom line? Can you elaborate on your desired steps and what resources you require? As for archival data, SpamArchive and others provide lots of it. The FTC also maintains a spam archive and they might be open to the idea of running something against it if we ask them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 00:12:27 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 AAA18208 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uou-0001zC-KM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:12:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h924C4cu007628 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:12:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uou-0001yw-Cg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:12:04 -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 AAA18203 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uor-00024T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:12:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uor-00024Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:12:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uoq-0001s6-RI; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4uoT-0001qp-3I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:11:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18192 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uoQ-000248-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:11:34 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4uoQ-00023g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:11:34 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM400CLP3KEP0@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 04:09:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) In-reply-to: <1065045365.1300.31.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> To: david nicol Cc: Phil Miller , anti-spam research group Message-id: <3F7BA508.9060700@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> <3F7B3D46.3040807@zemos.net> <1065045365.1300.31.camel@plaza.davidnicol.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, 02 Oct 2003 00:09:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Would someone present like to put together a short document evaluating the concept based on the discussion in the last few days? Checking the archives might bring out additional nuggets. Keep in mind the req. and tech considerations docs. Yakov david nicol wrote: > Here's what I sent the author: > > > Hello, I am pleased to see an article listing arguments > against sender-pays systems. > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1272889,00.asp > > Thanks! > > Here are some hopefully cogent answers to your objections: > > 1: I do not consider it a problem when my e-mail receiving > server in Kansas City refuses > to accept messages from strangers in Belarus who don't know > me well enough to include a "magic phrase" with their > introductory note. > > 2: Micropayments are only a problem due to fear, uncertainty, > doubt and greed on the part of established payment system players. > The tipjar.com micropayment infrastructure has been happily > processing payments of single pennies since 1996. No, it hasn't > made any money, but if it ever reaches its break-even point it > will. > > 3: You seem to think that a sender-pays system would have > to be a mandated top-down system that would replace all > current systems in a momentous, sparky revolution. The > pay2send infrastructure plays nicely with current e-mail > protocols, blocking postage-due messages with language > that current e-mail systems understand. When a service > provider joins the pay2send sender-pays infrastructure, > that service provider's customers can then have their > micropayment bill included with their regular monthly > bill, much the way that a long distance bill is included > with the monthly bill for a telephone land-line. > > Thank you very much again for the thoughtful article. Would > you accept a position on the pay2send technical advisory board? > > David Nicol > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 01:13:35 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 BAA20151 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vm4-0004VM-Qg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:13:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h925DCun017310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:13:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vm4-0004V7-LO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:13:12 -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 BAA20137 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vm1-0002l1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:13:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vm1-0002ky-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:13:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vls-0004T0-Qg; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vlE-0004MJ-8X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:12:20 -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 BAA20119 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vlB-0002kT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:12:17 -0400 Received: from mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vlA-0002jK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:12:16 -0400 Received: from wombat.fernhaven (c210-49-135-239.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.135.239]) by mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h925Bkk12625 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:11:46 +1000 Received: from [172.16.0.99] (helo=dh99.fernhaven) by wombat.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4vkf-0001qv-00; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:11:45 +1000 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Brad Knowles References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:11:42 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I started writing a point by point response to the previous message in this thread, but abandoned it halfway through as it appeared to be degenerating into extreme silliness. I'll therefore make a brief "closing argument" instead. In the fight against spam, it is worth considering the use of a pull-based transfer of data at some point in the protocol for the following reasons. 1. It defeats the exploitation of open HTTP proxies and other one-way address hiding schemes; the sender must take a server role. 2. It can act as an improvement over greylisting, since the recipient is in control of the callback attempt, rather than waiting passively. 3. It could be incorporated into SMTP in an evolutionary manner if desired. 4. It need not present significant new exploit paths for spammers. Brad Knowles has raised many objections to my defence of "pull" in this thread so far, quite a few of which I have left unanswered. I intend to leave them that way: I disagree with them, but addressing them would probably get me nowhere with Brad, and bore the remainder of the list. Therefore, I rest my case. If anyone (other than Brad) feels that my argument is weak in some way, I'll be happy to consider the issue, either off-list or on. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 01:27:30 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 BAA20554 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzW-000532-RZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h925R61Y019393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:27:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzW-00052c-Jl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:06 -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 BAA20547 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vzT-0002uR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vzS-0002uN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzR-0004yJ-SV; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A4vyj-0004xl-GZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:17 -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 BAA20508 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vyg-0002tt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vyf-0002tL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:14 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM400MKZ72RG3@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:25:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" In-reply-to: <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Brad Knowles Message-id: <3F7BB6CD.2090009@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:25:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Brett Watson wrote: > I started writing a point by point response to the previous message in this > thread, but abandoned it halfway through as it appeared to be degenerating > into extreme silliness. I'll therefore make a brief "closing argument" > instead. > > In the fight against spam, it is worth considering the use of a pull-based > transfer of data at some point in the protocol for the following reasons. > > 1. It defeats the exploitation of open HTTP proxies and other one-way address > hiding schemes; the sender must take a server role. > 2. It can act as an improvement over greylisting, since the recipient is in > control of the callback attempt, rather than waiting passively. > 3. It could be incorporated into SMTP in an evolutionary manner if desired. > 4. It need not present significant new exploit paths for spammers. > > Brad Knowles has raised many objections to my defence of "pull" in this thread > so far, quite a few of which I have left unanswered. I intend to leave them > that way: I disagree with them, but addressing them would probably get me > nowhere with Brad, and bore the remainder of the list. Therefore, I rest my > case. > > If anyone (other than Brad) feels that my argument is weak in some way, I'll > be happy to consider the issue, either off-list or on. > KEEP IN MIND that pull is being considered for many applications that were prior carried over email such as newsletters which begun to migrate to HTML and RSS. If anyone considers the "pull" proposal viable for specific applications or even for email, then a document summarizing pros and cons would be useful. This document should include input from both side of fence and take the req. and tech. considerations document into account. However, keep in mind that "pull" proposals and other "replace SMTP" proposals are a long term solutions. There will be too many issues deploying it short-term. And Brad and Brett - thank you for keeping your cool! In the past many conversations like this have deteriorate into flame wars. This is a mark of improvement for the entire group. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 01:27:30 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 BAA20555 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzW-000531-RL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h925R6ug019387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:27:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzW-00052b-HE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:06 -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 BAA20549 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vzT-0002uU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vzS-0002uO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vzS-0004yR-Cp; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:27:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4vz9-0004y2-Tp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20531 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vz6-0002u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4vz6-0002tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:40 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.185.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM400HDU73IIC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:26:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" In-reply-to: <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Brad Knowles Message-id: <3F7BB6EA.3050002@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:26:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Brett Watson wrote: > I started writing a point by point response to the previous message in this > thread, but abandoned it halfway through as it appeared to be degenerating > into extreme silliness. I'll therefore make a brief "closing argument" > instead. > > In the fight against spam, it is worth considering the use of a pull-based > transfer of data at some point in the protocol for the following reasons. > > 1. It defeats the exploitation of open HTTP proxies and other one-way address > hiding schemes; the sender must take a server role. > 2. It can act as an improvement over greylisting, since the recipient is in > control of the callback attempt, rather than waiting passively. > 3. It could be incorporated into SMTP in an evolutionary manner if desired. > 4. It need not present significant new exploit paths for spammers. > > Brad Knowles has raised many objections to my defence of "pull" in this thread > so far, quite a few of which I have left unanswered. I intend to leave them > that way: I disagree with them, but addressing them would probably get me > nowhere with Brad, and bore the remainder of the list. Therefore, I rest my > case. > > If anyone (other than Brad) feels that my argument is weak in some way, I'll > be happy to consider the issue, either off-list or on. > KEEP IN MIND that pull is being considered for many applications that were prior carried over email such as newsletters which begun to migrate to HTML and RSS. If anyone considers the "pull" proposal viable for specific applications or even for email, then a document summarizing pros and cons would be useful. This document should include input from both side of fence and take the req. and tech. considerations document into account. And Brad and Brett - thank you for keeping your cool! In the past many conversations like this have deteriorate into flame wars. This is a mark of improvement for the entire group. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 03:49:55 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 DAA06509 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yDN-0005Ff-5V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:49:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h927nWee020181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:49:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yDM-0005FI-5C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:49:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06498 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yDJ-0004Gl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:49:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yDJ-0004Gi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:49:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yCs-0005Ay-3Z; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:49:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yCA-00059R-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:48:18 -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 DAA06460 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yC7-0004G0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:48:15 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yC7-0004Fx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:48:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 8575 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 07:48:16 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 07:48:16 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <3F7B9E07.4010908@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:48:09 -0500 At 10:39 PM 10/1/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Bill Weinman wrote: >>At 11:13 PM 9/28/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>>Second, I would like to ask if you can clarify for us whether your >>>proposal seeks to replace SMTP completely. >>Yes, AMTP is intended as a replacement of SMTP. It is also substantially >>derivative of SMTP, a design decision intended to ease transition. >First of all Bill, please keep in mind that we are not out to get you here, Honestly, if I thought you were hostile, I would not have replied. >Second, are you aware of other efforts underway to provide a protocol to >replace SMTP. Especially the following: Yes, I have seen all of those and more. I have been subscribed to the I-D announcement list for a long time. Just because others have proposed replacements for SMTP that did not, will not, may not, or can not work, does not mean that the concept of replacing SMTP is itself fundamentally flawed. Any solution that will ultimately work must go through a refinement process. Most proposals (including my AMTP) start out with many flaws. Then they either get refined or they die on the vine. Most die early. Many of my ideas before this one have died. I'm still refining AMTP and I'm pleased with the progress so far. >>I am acutely aware of this issue and AMTP addresses it by maintaining the >>overall design and command set of SMTP. AMTP is substantially derivative >>of SMTP and as such the transition should be, not entirely trivial, but >>as close as possible without sacrificing its operational advantages. >I want you to reconsider this issue again. I re-consider it every day. I have been considering and re-considering it for years. I have discussed it with Dave Crocker (just last month). He happens to disagree with me and I respect that. >It would be very useful to the group in general if we had an analysis of >whether SMTP needs to be replaced in line with Dave's suggestion above. With all due respect, I have my hands full already. I am not here to be "useful to the group". Please don't take it personally, but if I were to set that as a goal I would never get my work done. I brought the AMTP draft to ASRG to get feedback, and I am getting that and I appreciate it. Several changes are going into the next draft based on feedback from this group. I think that's an excellent outcome. I am aware that the IAB and IETF have a predisposition opposed replacing SMTP, and frankly I think that's a smart position for them. On the other hand, I also think it's valuable for people like me should reach out and try something bold, as I am doing. The IETF cannot do that -- they have a large and diverse constituency. I don't have that constraint. The bold steps must, by necessity, be taken by individual mavericks. Perhaps this one will work. Perhaps it won't. We will only find out if I pursue it. >Additionally, the IAB will be considering the issue at some point and it >is important to watch what they will come up with. I will be watching then, as I am now. In the mean time I will continue my work. --Bill >>Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. >BTW, I love the quote :) ... cool ... so I guess I need a new one now ... --- God is love; Love is blind; Ray Charles is blind; ... ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 03:58:30 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 DAA06752 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yLe-0005m3-BQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:58:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h927w6lF022189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:58:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yLd-0005lo-W2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:58:06 -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 DAA06741 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yLb-0004MZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:58:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yLa-0004MV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:58:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yLZ-0005i3-G4; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4yKk-0005eD-1w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:57:10 -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 DAA06734 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yKh-0004M5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:57:07 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4yKg-0004M2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:57:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 8799 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 07:57:09 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 07:57:09 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:57:06 -0500 At 10:23 PM 10/1/2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 9:16 PM -0500 10/1/03, Bill Weinman wrote: >>MPC is policy-neutral, and doesn't have a concept of "stronger" or >>"weaker", perhaps you mean "more restrictive"? >>Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? >Because they aren't always provided by the same company. That doesn't mean they must have different preemptive MPC values. There are a number of ways to deal with this: use a least-restrictive common setting for the EHLO reply MPC value; bind to a particular IP addresses for your back up server. That's off the top of my head. The EHLO reply preemptive MPC feature is not for everyone. I'm assuming most large ISPs will not use it. But it's an excellent solution for corporate mail servers where the corporation wants to control costs and set company-wide policies. But I expect many ISPs to have various settings available for their users to set on a recipient-specific basis. Like they do now with spam filters. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 05:04:38 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 FAA08385 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNg-0000Rk-N5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9294GsA001716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNe-0000Rb-N5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:14 -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 FAA08367 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zNa-0004zb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zNZ-0004zV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNS-0000NL-TV; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zMo-0000Mk-Sq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:22 -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 FAA08350 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zMl-0004zF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:19 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zMl-0004zC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:19 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9293067051638; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:03:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Kee Hinckley From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Bill Weinman , Markus Stumpf , 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, 2 Oct 2003 10:52:16 +0200 At 11:23 PM -0400 2003/10/01, Kee Hinckley wrote: >> Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? > > Because they aren't always provided by the same company. This is exactly the same problem we have today with backup MXes and their anti-spam or anti-virus implementations. This is also why many spammers choose to always route their spam through the backup MXes, under the assumption that they will be less well protected than the primaries. There's nothing new here. However, this is an issue that we need to keep in mind. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 05:04:39 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 FAA08400 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNi-0000S8-7O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9294IsD001734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNh-0000Rt-Vo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08365 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zNZ-0004zY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zNZ-0004zU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zNR-0000ND-Vo; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zMn-0000Mf-Bz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:21 -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 FAA08347 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zMj-0004z9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:18 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zMj-0004z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:03:17 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9293069051638; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:03:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> References: <200310011521.28112.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310020207.43674.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200310021511.42972.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - A Brief Defence of "Pull" Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Brad Knowles 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, 2 Oct 2003 10:55:10 +0200 At 3:11 PM +1000 2003/10/02, Brett Watson wrote: > Brad Knowles has raised many objections to my defence of "pull" in >this thread > so far, quite a few of which I have left unanswered. I intend to leave them > that way: I disagree with them, but addressing them would probably get me > nowhere with Brad, and bore the remainder of the list. Therefore, I rest my > case. I will agree to disagree. I've been biting my tongue with regards to most of the RMX-like proposals because most of what I would say would simply be a re-hash of things already said. I will do the same here. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 05:24:32 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 FAA08875 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgx-0001ii-8s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h929OApc006602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgw-0001ff-4q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08838 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgs-0005AM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgs-0005AI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgn-0001Yh-HK; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgM-0001Xp-RY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:34 -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 FAA08811 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:23:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgJ-00059m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:31 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgI-00059j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:30 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h929NS67052451; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:23:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , 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, 2 Oct 2003 11:09:53 +0200 At 2:48 AM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: > I am aware that the IAB and IETF have a predisposition opposed > replacing SMTP, and frankly I think that's a smart position for them. On the whole, I agree with them. > On the other hand, I also think it's valuable for people like me > should reach out and try something bold, as I am doing. The IETF > cannot do that -- they have a large and diverse constituency. I > don't have that constraint. I also agree that alternative proposals should continue to be worked on. If it turns out that we do need to replace SMTP in order to make things work, we had better be prepared with multiple proposals. > The bold steps must, by necessity, be taken by individual mavericks. If you're going to be that far out, be prepared for a lot of arrows coming your way. And shotgun blasts. And bullets from buffalo rifles from over a mile away. Don't be surprised if you find me as one of the people aiming your direction. I can assure you that I'm going to be damn hard to convince. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 05:24:34 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 FAA08890 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgx-0001it-Bx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h929OBMX006617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgx-0001gT-19 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:11 -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 FAA08840 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgs-0005AP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgs-0005AK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgo-0001Yp-3Y; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:24:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A4zgS-0001Xx-2B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:40 -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 FAA08814 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgO-00059s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:36 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A4zgO-00059p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:23:36 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h929NS69052451; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 05:23:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Kee Hinckley , Markus Stumpf , 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, 2 Oct 2003 11:15:05 +0200 At 2:57 AM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: >>> Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? >> Because they aren't always provided by the same company. > > That doesn't mean they must have different preemptive MPC values. There > are a number of ways to deal with this: use a least-restrictive common > setting for the EHLO reply MPC value; bind to a particular IP addresses > for your back up server. That's off the top of my head. If you don't control the other machine, how are you going to control what they use for MPC? If you don't control the anti-spam settings for the other machine, how are you going to control what spam gets into your system? > The EHLO reply preemptive MPC feature is not for everyone. I'm assuming > most large ISPs will not use it. But it's an excellent solution for > corporate mail servers where the corporation wants to control costs and > set company-wide policies. Homogenous network environments where the same policy is applied to everyone is not going to be a particularly large subset of users. > But I expect many ISPs to have various > settings available for their users to set on a recipient-specific > basis. Like they do now with spam filters. Which implies that we need some sort of mechanism to be able to communicate this information later in the SMTP dialog. Moreover, if we had that, and could advertise that information via EHLO, everyone would be better off -- homogenous network environments applying the same policy to everyone would be able to continue to do so, while heterogeneous network environments with per-user control over these features would also be able to make use of this functionality. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem with backup MXes. Or senders that ignore this feature because it is inconvenient. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 06:07:34 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 GAA10153 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A50Mb-00047i-PR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:07:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92A7Drl015844 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:07:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A50Mb-00047T-Cy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:07:13 -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 GAA10134 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A50MX-0005bq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:07:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A50MX-0005bn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:07:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A50MQ-000427-CF; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A50Lz-00040X-AZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:06:35 -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 GAA10102 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A50Lv-0005an-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:06:31 -0400 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A50Lu-0005ak-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:06:30 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1A50Lv-0006R1-Fs for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:06:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3F7B39E8.1000906@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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, 02 Oct 2003 11:06:31 +0100 > "Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within > " > > No reason to complicate it by including another acronym. > > > Quite. Is what I meant. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 09:38:33 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 JAA18791 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A53el-0007tS-LO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:38:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92DcBdp030335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:38:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A53el-0007tC-Hb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:38:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18779 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A53ej-0000hC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:38:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A53ej-0000h9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:38:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A53eb-0007ox-EX; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A53eR-0007kZ-FC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:37:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18773 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A53eP-0000gw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:37:49 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A53eP-0000gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:37:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 91570 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 13:37:47 -0000 Received: from frsc-dialdyna3c-66-228-140-31.advantexcom.net (66.228.140.31) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 13:37:47 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.228.140.31 From: "Terry Sullivan" To: "ASRG list" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Reply-To: "Terry Sullivan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) 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: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:38:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:07:24 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Terry Sullivan wrote: [snip] >> Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a need for a some sort of >> active (though not necessarily particularly time-consuming) trap >> address maintenance effort. Otherwise, the only real opportunity >> for *research* (as opposed to debate) lies in >> analysis/characterization of archival data. > > What is the bottom line? Can you elaborate on your desired steps > and what resources you require? Actually, I was sorta hoping to inspire others to contribute their superior expertise to the discussion/effort. Compared to several folks on here, my experience with trap addresses is minimal (and almost entirely accidental). I can help to identify/clarify/support the analytical goals that a trap address group might be asked to fulfill, along with helping to scope out the data/metadata requirements. But I'm really neither qualified nor equipped to spearhead such an effort. (Remember, I'm a statistician, not a mail admin.) So, I guess the first step is for folks who're both able and willing to coordinate (or contribute to) a trap address effort to "raise their hands" (failing that, to write me/the chairs off-list). For security purposes, the group should be small (again, no more than a handful of individuals) and thus needs to be composed entirely of folks both willing and able to actually contribute time/effort/expertise (and to sign NDAs). If there's sufficient interest, the group could assemble and begin work almost immediately. If not, then the ASRG research agenda may need to be trimmed back. > As for archival data, SpamArchive and others provide lots of it. > The FTC also maintains a spam archive and they might be open to > the idea of running something against it if we ask them. Hey, I'm all for analysis of passive data. But many of the questions/proposals, etc. that have been floated on this list, from greylisting to 550/CR, can't be answered by analyzing archival data. - Terry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 10:10:34 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 KAA20611 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A549k-00011G-2k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:10:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92EACUa003912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A549j-000111-TA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:10:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20561 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A549h-00010x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:10:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A549h-00010u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:10:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A549Z-0000xP-PR; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A548i-0000x0-Sz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:09:08 -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 KAA20447 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A548g-00010V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:09:06 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A548g-00010S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:09:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 6672 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 14:09:04 -0000 Received: from frsc-dialdyna3c-66-228-140-31.advantexcom.net (66.228.140.31) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 14:09:04 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.228.140.31 From: "Terry Sullivan" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Terry Sullivan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) 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: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:09:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:03:18 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 12:21 PM -0500 10/1/03, Terry Sullivan wrote: >>Data from multiple independent sources (including Liam Meany, Scott >>Nelson, and myself) indicate that "otherwise identical" trap >>addresses receive *vastly* different amounts of spam traffic. [snip] >It's frequently been said that there are really only about 200 major >spammers. And certainly there are fewer types of spamming software >than that, and fewer sources of target addresses. [snip] >...And it's definitely not a random population. As you suggest, there are lots of possible/plausible explanations that may actually account for the "unexplained" variance in _ad lib_ spam volume. And I absolutely agree with your core point, that said variance is so obscenely large that it cannot possibly be truly "random" in nature. Clearly, one or more systematic forces are at play; but those systematic forces lie wholly outside experimental control. Still, it remains statistically "bad" variance, precisely because it isn't subject to experimental control. By implication, any "live" experiment simply *must* be able to factor it out at analysis time. Otherwise, there's no point in running the experiment. (All of which underscores the need for a trap-address effort.) - Terry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 11:18:07 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 LAA25598 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55D3-0005bp-Nq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:17:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92FHfaj021558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:17:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55D3-0005bd-8v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:17:41 -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 LAA25553 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55BR-0005Vf-0Q; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55Az-0005UM-Rq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:15:36 -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 LAA25481 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:15:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A55Ay-00020K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:15:33 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A55Ay-0001zz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:15:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 27598 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 15:08:39 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 15:08:39 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002095316.0273ce78@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:08:37 -0500 >> The bold steps must, by necessity, be taken by individual mavericks. At 04:09 AM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > If you're going to be that far out, be prepared for a lot of > arrows coming your way. And shotgun blasts. And bullets from buffalo > rifles from over a mile away. Yeah, I understand that and I expect it. And most have been civil about it, which is more than I expected. > Don't be surprised if you find me as one of the people aiming > your direction. I can assure you that I'm going to be damn hard to convince. Adversarial argument can be valuable outside of the legal system too! So far arguments have been intense and well-reasoned. I couldn't ask for anything more helpful than that. I think the differences between the second draft and the first speak highly of the process. --Bill --- "He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemy's life." --Nietzsche ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ Bill Weinman Gimme back my email! - _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 12:32:53 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 MAA29705 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56NU-0002H1-3c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92GWWxr008733 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:32:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56NT-0002Gm-V0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:31 -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 MAA29641 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56NS-0003FG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56NS-0003FD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56N0-000297-92; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Mh-00027m-UV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:31:44 -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 MAA29604 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Mg-0003EI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:31:42 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Mf-0003Dt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:31:41 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A32B66C0100; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:32:43 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:40:28 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <14205b2f-e6c4-4afd-b19f-c6995e63cf98> 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOIfNKmSlBpi/+JTai0rj7cJKuyUgAhdsng From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , 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, 2 Oct 2003 06:33:57 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eric, >=20 > If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I=20 > don't think that we should be hijacking a sender's email=20 > address to carry various protocol information. >=20 I'm not sure what you mean by that. If CRI is a protocol between two people, instead of two systems, I don't see what's wrong w/ using the user's email addresses. =20 > Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a=20 > recommendation rather than a must, shall... >=20 If its just a recommendation, then why not recommend something which simplifies the situation and reduces overhead? > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Peter > > Kay > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >=20 > > I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to=20 > Eric/Yakov's=20 > > draft at=20 > >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt . ASRG=20 > owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I=20 > personally thank you for furthering an important area of=20 > interoperability. >=20 > On loop avoidance section, specifically: >=20 > "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended > that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, > for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's=20 > email address as the sender of the challenge message." >=20 > We disgree. >=20 > Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the=20 > sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's=20 > automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his challenge > is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays or > filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his=20 > challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be invoked, > possibly creating unecessary overhead. >=20 > Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally=20 > interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the=20 > whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging other > challenges. >=20 > Peter >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 2 12:36:24 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 MAA29880 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Qt-0002XN-Tm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Ga3sl009703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Qt-0002VP-JE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29869 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Qs-0003Ip-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Qr-0003Im-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Qr-0002Rh-Tw; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A56QO-0002R2-4p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:35:32 -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 MAA29848 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56QM-0003IJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:35:30 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56QL-0003H7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:35:30 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A4125500120; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:36:34 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:44:20 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOIj+IQ9E0n3nuoRjO35hXVj+QxmwAc2fRw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Kee Hinckley" , "Eric Dean" 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, 2 Oct 2003 06:37:49 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond with the same RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to?=20 Meaning, if the customer sent an email to "support@domain.com", did your autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of "support@domain.com" or was it "techsupportreply@domain.com". > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > To: Eric Dean > Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >=20 >=20 > At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > >If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I=20 > don't think=20 > >that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to=20 > carry various=20 > >protocol information. >=20 > Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate with more=20 > than just other CR systems. >=20 > As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support system.=20 > Our spam filters validated the sending email address by doing a MAIL=20 > FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system=20 > rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our=20 > server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One went to the=20 > support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't have=20 > the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we=20 > responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge that as well).=20 > The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which=20 > generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it gets=20 > a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that stunt). That=20 > reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no=20 > damage there, just annoyance. >=20 > So here's the count of messages sent. >=20 > User - 1 > Support System - 2 > CR System - 2 >=20 > And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear out. > And the user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their support=20 > request until it moves through the queue to a human. At which point=20 > our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the challenge. >=20 > --=20 > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology 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 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 12:37:25 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 MAA29908 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Rt-0002d9-5f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:37:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Gb4Ut010105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:37:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Rs-0002cu-Ot for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:37:04 -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 MAA29904 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Rr-0003JI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:37:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Rq-0003JF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:37:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Rq-0002Zp-0f; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:37:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56R4-0002Yr-BM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29873 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56R2-0003Iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:12 -0400 Received: from bay2-f24.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.24] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56R2-0003IY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:36:12 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:35:37 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:35:37 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. Analysis (specifically, trap addresses) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2003 16:35:37.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[35CB29C0:01C38903] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:35:37 -0200 Terry Sullivan wrote: >>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:07:24 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>>Terry Sullivan wrote: [snip] >>>If not, then the ASRG research agenda may need to be trimmed back. >>As for archival data, SpamArchive and others provide lots of it. >>The FTC also maintains a spam archive and they might be open to >>the idea of running something against it if we ask them. > >Hey, I'm all for analysis of passive data. But many of the >questions/proposals, etc. that have been floated on this list, from >greylisting to 550/CR, can't be answered by analyzing archival data. A comment, since I've communicated some with Terry about this. Not only we need more active data, we really need to run different methods on the same accounts/site at the same time, it might help to analyze some situations. I have been running my proof-of-concept for the Earnest method (filtering only on include URL's/Call center numbers, for you missing it) on an old spam-ridden e-mail account, but when Blaster hit in mid-Aug. my ISP gave up RBL and started up SpamAssassin in baysian mode. I hade both one the same account. It gave some really interesting effects and comparisons. My data shows that both methods have ca 85 % hitrate each, Earnest just above and SpamAssassin just below, but combined they are incredibly effective, they stop well over 99% of the spams with a low false positive rate, 2 out of 180 real mails or ca 2 in 900 of the total amount of traffic. One because the sender where from a domain, where the Earnest data file extraction filter had extracted out a non-related URL-domain from a spam, like a Hotmail link. The other because HTML in the mail got SpamAssassin to lable it as spam. The limitation of Earnest, as pointed out here before, is that the data file with URL's and numbers needs to be often and correctly updated, while a method as Spamassassin with baysian, seems to be unable to recognize some types of spams (haven't yet had time to check that). A method like SpamAssassin also need more resources to handle it's analysis. Earnest have ca 19.000 URL's, ca 400K, and works with a simple grep, while SpamAssassin uses a number of criterias and have typical ca 4-6 Mb data. But the longer I have this combination, the more I lean on to a multi-function process situation, two or three methods that go through the mails, the most lightweighted first, leaving the trickier cases to the more competent (and most resource prone) method last. Unfortunatly the figures above is on a bit low amount data, one mailbox with ca 900 mails, 180 real and rest spams from Aug. 18 to Sept. 23. SpamAssassin was trained on ca 1500 active mailboxes, where the av. spam level is ca 4 spam/day/box, while Earnest data was manually extracted from 130.000 spams and some hundreds more "live" through an automatic honeytrap proof-of-concept tool. Therefore it would be interesting to get other sites with more volume and a number of mailboxes, that gets about the same spams, also to run different methods in parallel, as well as some combinations, in order to get more input. 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 Oct 2 12:45:31 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 MAA00297 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Zi-0003XB-6V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:45:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92GjAPg013579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:45:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Zi-0003Ww-0u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:45:10 -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 MAA00284 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Zg-0003PO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:45:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56Zg-0003PL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:45:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56Zb-0003Uo-7I; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:45:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56ZL-0003UN-OO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:44:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00272 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56ZJ-0003P1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:44:45 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56ZI-0003Oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:44:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 42114 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Oct 2003 16:44:43 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Bill Weinman Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Message-ID: <20031002164443.GA36339@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:44:43 +0200 On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:16:39PM -0500, Bill Weinman wrote: > I added this language to the next draft version: > > If there is no MPC declaration in the EHLO reply, "ALLOW */*" is > implied and the client may proceed. Ok. So it is also "legal" for a Server to send a ALLOW */* (which means no restrictions) and later on do C: RCPT TO: S: 550 MPC policy violation i.e. oviously "lie" about the initial MPC policy declaration :-))) > >Roaming users + MPC > >As a roaming user I might want to relay a email with a MPC that > >violates the general server classification (which is IMHO pretty valid, > >even more if the remote server/recipient will accept it). I am missing a > >specification on how to handle this. > > I don't really understand the question. Why would a user relay a message? Example: you have a large company with field workers. You have contracts with various service providers. The notebooks autoconfigure. If you are a field worker, you dialin, send your email and disconnect. You don't want to stay online minutes or hours for a end-to-end connection to the mailserver of your employer. So you relay the message through the mailserver of your dialin provider in any case, to get it off fast, disconnect and the MTA of the dialin provider delivers the message. Authorization for relay is accomplished with SMTP AUTH. Now the field worker wants to tell his boss a funny story about a customer. He selects MPC per/individual and clicks send. However the MTA at the ISP only accepts com/* wheras the MTA at the company would accept */* for the CEO. As the MTA sends MPC declaration com/* and the clients knows it is per/individual it will not send the message and QUIT immediately. Tou cannot outrules this say with a correct SMTP AUTH because they do not reach that stage in communication. > >Backup Servers > >How should MPC work with backup servers implementing stronger MPC than > >the destination host does. > > MPC is policy-neutral, and doesn't have a concept of "stronger" or > "weaker", perhaps you mean "more restrictive"? Yes. Sorry, non native english speaker ;-) > Why would backup servers have different MPC than the servers they back up? This has been discussed in this thread meanwhile ;-) Nothing new to contribute from my side. > In AMTP, a message cannot be relayed from one "public" MTA to another > "public" MTA. In your example, all but one transaction would be > accomplished with private network connections (i.e., using privately-signed > certificates). I don't understand that. Assume the following example: Dialin-User at DialinProvider A -1-> In-MTA at EmailProvider B -2-> Out-MTA at EmailProvider B -3-> MTA at ISP C -4-> MailGate at Customer D (of ISP C) -5-> Internal Mailserver at Customer D This is a scenario happening on the Internet millions of times each day. All MTAs in that scenario either would have to use ACCEPT */* als MPC declaration or may not have a less restrictive MPC declaration than "Internal Mailserver at Customer D" or else their policy will dictate the what the recipient will (not) see. -1-> will be authenticated, probably SMTP AUTH -2-> will not be authenticated (internal conn, time/CPU overhead) -3-> will use AMTP -4-> will use AMTP -5-> might or might not be authenticated (internal conn, time/CPU overhead) The weak point is -1->. The AMTP connection will not gain much authentication or security. It is unlikely that "MailGate at Customer D" does not trust "MTA at ISP C" and still use it as MX to protect itself. It is unlikely that -3-> will get denied. No ISP can block yahoo, hotmail, AOL, ... for policy reasons and keep it's customer base. So except for having some clear evidence that "In-MTA at EmailProvider B" accepted the evil spam initially it doesn't help much. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >TLS/X.509 > >Just for clarification ... > >Do you want to enforce both encryption (TLS) and authentification (X.509)? > >Authentification via X.509 doesn't necessarily need encryption. Thus you > >could "gain trust" without TLS just by exchanging/validating X.509 certs. > > As I understand it, the TLS handshake includes logic to verify that the > presenter of the certificate has the corresponding private key for the > certificate. I don't see an easy way to do that without TLS. Ok, didn't think of that. > >Why don't you also define authentification/trust policies for the receiving > >host? This would add additional security and address the problem of > >rogue receiving MTAs intercepting emails. > > I had that in the first draft, but I became convinced that it was > unnecessary. > > Part of the goal of AMTP is to produce the least-restrictive specification > that still provides the required benefits. Unless I'm missing something, > there is not a significant problem with rogue receiving MTAs hijacking > email. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. It would add security. DNS spoofying still takes places as there are enough broken DNS caches out there. Requiring a valid (and CA signed) key not only on the sending but also on the receiving side would IMHO be fair and add security. And as the receiving MTA probably wishes to send out emails itself it would be required to have a valid (and CA signed) key anyway. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >SRV records > >Why do you want to make MX records obsolete? > > It wasn't a goal to obsolete MX records, and the SRV records weren't in the > original draft. But it solves a significant problem: How to transition from > SMTP to AMTP without the overhead of attempting both protocols for a lot of > deliveries. > > If both protocols were to use MX records, the only way to know if a server > MTA speaks AMTP would be to try the AMTP port #. That would fail often, > especially at the beginning of the transition period. With SRV records, you > will know which protocol to use before you connect. > > The side benefit is that the MX RR was a kludge and AMTP will allow it to > eventually die of natural causes. Dan Bernstein describes MXPS - the Mail Exchanger Protocol Switch http://cr.yp.to/im/mxps.html He utilises the distance (prio) field of MX records to indicate different protocols. E.g. QMTP is at 12801, 12817, 12833, 12849, 12865, ..., 13041 space.net IN MX 12816 mail.space.net. IN MX 12801 moebius.space.net. This signals (12801) that a QMTP connection to moebius.space.net is wanted most. If that fails it falls back to a SMTP connection to moebius.space.net. If that fails if falls back to the next distant MX record and as 12816 is not particularly assigned to a protocol is tries a SMTP connection to mail.space.net. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >AMTP + SMTP > >For (at least) a grace period AMTP and SMTP have to life together. > >How should a AMTP capable sending MTA behave? What if the destination > >signals AMTP capability via SRV records but the connection cannot be > >established. Should it fallback to SMTP? > > That's an implementation detail, and I think that what you described is a > smart behavior and will likely prevail during the transition period. On the > other hand I can see where some servers may not want to do that, so I think > it's best to leave it out of the specification. IMHO it is important to even talk about implementation details. Look at HTML and missing details and what the Browser Wars make out of it. Not specifying this will lead to some MTAs implementing AMTP will fall back and some won't. So with a misconfigured system some emails will arrive and some won't. IMHO either all should arrive to compensate for the misconfiuration or none should arrive to signal the admin that something is horribly wrong. > Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I've added your name to the > acknowledgements section in the next draft. Oh .. thanks! \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 Thu Oct 2 12:50:26 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 MAA00473 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56eT-0003mL-A5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:50:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Go5u5014519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:50:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56eT-0003m5-55 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:50:05 -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 MAA00455 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56eR-0003SB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:50:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56eR-0003S8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:50:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56eQ-0003jr-Dz; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56e4-0003jM-5K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:49:40 -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 MAA00439 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56e2-0003Ri-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:49:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56e1-0003RD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:49:37 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500I7K2PNGZ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:49:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance In-reply-to: To: Peter Kay Cc: Kee Hinckley , Eric Dean , asrg@ietf.org, Brad Knowles Message-id: <3F7C56F8.3080802@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:48:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as a basis for our BCP: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html Peter Kay wrote: > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond with the same > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to "support@domain.com", did your > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of "support@domain.com" or was it > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM >>To: Eric Dean >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >> >> >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: >> >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I >> >>don't think >> >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to >> >>carry various >> >>>protocol information. >> >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate with more >>than just other CR systems. >> >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support system. >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by doing a MAIL >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One went to the >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't have >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge that as well). >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it gets >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that stunt). That >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no >>damage there, just annoyance. >> >>So here's the count of messages sent. >> >>User - 1 >>Support System - 2 >>CR System - 2 >> >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear out. >>And the user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their support >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At which point >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the challenge. >> >>-- >>Kee Hinckley >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense >>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 Oct 2 12:56:26 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 MAA00682 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56kI-00045G-Nh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:56:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Gu6Xe015692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:56:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56kI-000451-Jl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:56:06 -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 MAA00665 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56kG-0003Vr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:56:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56kG-0003Vo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:56:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A56kD-00042u-UW; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A56jh-00042O-Ca for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:55:29 -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 MAA00660 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56jf-0003Vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:55:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A56je-0003VV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:55:26 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500IMN2ZF1L@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:54:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3F7C5856.4060302@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928222851.01d8b1e8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001202818.01f678b8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002014519.025bdac8@mail.bearnet.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, 02 Oct 2003 12:54:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bill Weinman wrote: > At 10:39 PM 10/1/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> Bill Weinman wrote: >> >> >> It would be very useful to the group in general if we had an analysis >> of whether SMTP needs to be replaced in line with Dave's suggestion >> above. > > > With all due respect, I have my hands full already. I am not here to > be "useful to the group". Please don't take it personally, but if I were > to set that as a goal I would never get my work done. > This was not meant to you, rather to the group in general. > I brought the AMTP draft to ASRG to get feedback, and I am getting > that and I appreciate it. Several changes are going into the next draft > based on feedback from this group. I think that's an excellent outcome. > Excellent. > I am aware that the IAB and IETF have a predisposition opposed > replacing SMTP, and frankly I think that's a smart position for them. On > the other hand, I also think it's valuable for people like me should > reach out and try something bold, as I am doing. The IETF cannot do that > -- they have a large and diverse constituency. I don't have that > constraint. > > The bold steps must, by necessity, be taken by individual mavericks. > Perhaps this one will work. Perhaps it won't. We will only find out if I > pursue it. > Bill - I admire your persisetnce and willingness to stand up! Now, that we have cleared up that you are aware of the opposition, I will not bother you on this anymore. Please keep the ASRG updated on the AMTP protocol. ALSO, if it is possible - please make it VERY clear in your draft that AMTP is meant to replace SMTP. When I read it, that was not clear to me. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 13:38:46 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 NAA15356 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57PA-0006ZQ-29 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:38:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92HcKFx025250 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57P9-0006ZB-SI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:38:19 -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 NAA15327 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57P7-0003xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:38:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57P7-0003xe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:38:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Or-0006RK-1I; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A57Nw-000675-TL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 NAA15266 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Nu-0003wh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Nr-0003wX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:36:59 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 688D7181C4; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:27:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <00b401c3890b$c4e03760$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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: <3F7B880F.6030808@solidmatrix.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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:36:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is all a recommendation is..theoretically, if a server is CRI compliant...the challenge does njot need to go to the sender anyway..so it doesn't matter who the sender is > -----Original Message----- > From: yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com [mailto:yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com] > On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:06 PM > To: Eric Dean > Cc: 'Peter Kay'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > Can this be left as a recommendation but not required, so the > implementors will be left to decide? Or do we need to make a decision on > this? Also, would this be relevant to the BCP area? > > Eric Dean wrote: > > If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I don't think > > that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to carry various > > protocol information. > > > > Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a recommendation > > rather than a must, shall... > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Peter > > > >>Kay > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM > >>To: asrg@ietf.org > >>Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >> > >>I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to Eric/Yakov's > >>draft > >>at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt . > >>ASRG owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I > >>personally thank you for furthering an important area of > >>interoperability. > >> > >>On loop avoidance section, specifically: > >> > >>"For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended > >>that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, > >>for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's > >>email address as the sender of the challenge message." > >> > >>We disgree. > >> > >>Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the > >>sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's > >>automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his > > > > challenge > > > >>is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays > > > > or > > > >>filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his > >>challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be > > > > invoked, > > > >>possibly creating unecessary overhead. > >> > >>Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally > >>interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the > >>whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging > > > > other > > > >>challenges. > >> > >>Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Asrg mailing list > >>Asrg@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 13:45:29 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 NAA15801 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Vh-0007O6-RB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:45:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Hj59s028392 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Vh-0007Nr-Lq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15780 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Vf-00044j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Vf-00044g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:45:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Ve-0007JM-FT; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Us-0007HN-Jf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:44:14 -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 NAA15706 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Uq-000438-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:44:12 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57Up-000434-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:44:12 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 8C77D181DB; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:28:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <00b501c3890b$ece78fb0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your example, highlights one of the exact reasons why CRI is justified. > Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate with more > than just other CR systems. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 13:47:24 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 NAA15926 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Xa-0007aN-U3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Hl2TB029153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:47:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57Xa-0007a4-Pe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:02 -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 NAA15896 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57XY-00046U-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57XY-00046R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57XY-0007TF-Mx; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57XK-0007Ss-FI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:46:46 -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 NAA15892 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57XI-00046F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:46:44 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57XH-00046C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:46:43 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 772A8192F4; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:31:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <00b601c3890c$6c624be0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:41:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Again, I am not claiming that it's wrong. I'm am just offering guidance one way or another. If the CRI systems are going to automate the challenge response mechanism...then it's kinda nice to separate the control messages from the email messages...that's all. From a programming perspective...I'd like to allow a white,black,grey-listed messages to simply take an action based upon the sender address rather than have to statefully inspect every message for CRI MIME headers...a little too much for SMTP servers. If the CRI messages are sent from the actual CRI system using a local email address, then it's simple...the message is addressed to me. However, I'm not requiring one or another...just stating a preference. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Kay > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:34 PM > To: Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > Eric, > > > > > If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > > don't think that we should be hijacking a sender's email > > address to carry various protocol information. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that. If CRI is a protocol between two > people, instead of two systems, I don't see what's wrong w/ using the > user's email addresses. > > > Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a > > recommendation rather than a must, shall... > > > > If its just a recommendation, then why not recommend something which > simplifies the situation and reduces overhead? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Peter > > > Kay > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > > > I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to > > Eric/Yakov's > > > draft at > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt > . ASRG > > owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I > > personally thank you for furthering an important area of > > interoperability. > > > > On loop avoidance section, specifically: > > > > "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended > > > that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, > > > for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's > > email address as the sender of the challenge message." > > > > We disgree. > > > > Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the > > sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's > > automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his > challenge > > is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays > or > > filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his > > challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be > invoked, > > possibly creating unecessary overhead. > > > > Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally > > interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the > > whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging > other > > challenges. > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 13:49:28 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 NAA16033 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57ZZ-0007gh-0L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:49:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Hn4hh029545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:49:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57ZY-0007gS-RV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:49:04 -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 NAA16015 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57ZW-00048J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:49:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57ZW-00048G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:49:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57ZV-0007dn-JI; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57YW-0007cG-01 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:48:00 -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 NAA15946 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57YT-00047E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:57 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57YT-00047B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:47:57 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 5827519337; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Peter Kay'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , , "'Brad Knowles'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <00b701c3890c$a8899e70$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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: <3F7C56F8.3080802@solidmatrix.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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:43:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience from someone who understands CR systems. Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles automation and loop avoidance. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM > To: Peter Kay > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as a basis for > our BCP: > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > Peter Kay wrote: > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond with the same > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to "support@domain.com", did your > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of "support@domain.com" or was it > > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > >>To: Eric Dean > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >> > >> > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > >> > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > >> > >>don't think > >> > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to > >> > >>carry various > >> > >>>protocol information. > >> > >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate with more > >>than just other CR systems. > >> > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support system. > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by doing a MAIL > >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our > >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One went to the > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't have > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge that as well). > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it gets > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that stunt). That > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no > >>damage there, just annoyance. > >> > >>So here's the count of messages sent. > >> > >>User - 1 > >>Support System - 2 > >>CR System - 2 > >> > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear out. > >>And the user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their support > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At which point > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the challenge. > >> > >>-- > >>Kee Hinckley > >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > >>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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 14:04:30 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 OAA17122 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57o9-0000HX-Jj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:04:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92I49iW001075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:04:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57o7-0000HG-H3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:04:07 -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 OAA17098 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57o4-0004RL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:04:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57o4-0004RI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57o1-0000Eo-O8; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A57nQ-0000EA-9T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:03:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17064 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57nN-0004QL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:03:21 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A57nN-0004Pe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:03:21 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500ATL64KQX@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:02:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:02:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt Abstract: " This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. " _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 14:19:30 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 OAA18131 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A582d-0001Eu-4w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:19:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92IJ7VC004758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:19:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A582c-0001Ef-VJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:19:07 -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 OAA18100 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:18:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A582a-0004lP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:19:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A582a-0004lM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:19:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A582Y-0001CY-9S; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:19:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5829-0001B8-OF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:18:37 -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 OAA18083 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5827-0004kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:18:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5826-0004kc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:18:34 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500AUL6Q1SV@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:15:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031002181210.GA17756@dumbo.pobox.com> To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Paul Judge , "'ASRG list'" Message-id: <3F7C6B47.60801@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <3F7B8751.4010704@solidmatrix.com> <20031002181210.GA17756@dumbo.pobox.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework -Two obstacles to a consent framework (was Re: Two obstacles to a consent framework.) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:15:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Please following the posting guidelines, subject has been changed. Mod.] Meng Weng Wong wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > | > | Personally, I feel that the consent approach is correct. > | > > I agree. Here is my perspective on the issue. > > Consent-based email is already possible. Any MTA is free to reject any > message for any reason. The problem lies in distinguishing wanted mail > from unwanted. There are two parts to this problem. The first is a > problem in politics; the second, deception. > > 1) The difference between "wanted" and "unwanted" is a personal decision. > > Historically, ISPs have had to decide site-wide policies by fiat. > Such policies try to do the best thing for the greatest number, and > are essentially political: no matter what you do, there is always a > minority who'll be guaranteed to be upset. > > Today it is hard for individual persons to express their preferences > at the SMTP front line. > > The major MTAs are constructed on the philosophy of "be liberal in > what you receive." They did not anticipate that one day they might > need to represent their recipients' preferences when talking to the > SMTP client. If one user wants to use one DNSBL, and another user > wants to use a different one, too bad. Everybody eats the same meal. > > It doesn't have to be that way. At root, even though its symptoms > are social, this is a technical problem with a technical solution. > > Everybody should not have to do what the majority wants to. > > Everybody should get to do what they want to do. > > At Pobox.com we are developing an SMTP proxy, intended for use with > Postfix but adaptable to other MTAs, which will perform per-user > database lookups. > > With this technology, individual users can choose their own consent > mechanisms such as DNSBLs, RHSBLs, sender address verification, > unknown sender domain policy, whitelists, blacklists, you name it. > > That way, if they're not happy with the defaults, they are free to > make their own decisions. If they don't like blackholes.easynet.nl, > they can use sbl.spamhaus.org. If they don't like sender address > verification, they can turn it off or reduce a 5xx reject to an > advisory header. > > That solves the first problem. > > 2) Even if you have comprehensive sender whitelists and blacklists, > they are beggared by the problem of forgery. > > You want to get mail from service@paypal.com. Anyone can claim to be > service@paypal.com. If you whitelist service@paypal.com, you will > get spam. > > This is also a technological limitation. RMX/SPF aims at this problem. > > Widespread adoption of an RMX/SPF strategy by industry leaders will > solve the second problem. > > Once we overcome these two obstacles, we can move on to more interesting > things, like reimagining email and building automated reputation systems. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 14:50:35 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 OAA19472 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58Wl-00035H-3E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:50:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92IoFAv011849 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:50:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58Wk-000352-Us for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:50:15 -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 OAA19460 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58Wi-0005BM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:50:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58Wh-0005BJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:50:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58WX-00032q-WC; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58Vh-00032M-4l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:49:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19437 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58Ve-0005Am-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:49:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58Vd-0005Ab-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:49:06 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500IM488UFB@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:48:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework -Two obstacles to a consent framework (was Re: Two obstacles to a consent framework.) In-reply-to: <3F7C6B47.60801@solidmatrix.com> To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: Paul Judge , "'ASRG list'" Message-id: <3F7C72F8.4010408@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <3F7B8751.4010704@solidmatrix.com> <20031002181210.GA17756@dumbo.pobox.com> <3F7C6B47.60801@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:48:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > [Please following the posting guidelines, subject has been changed. Mod.] > > Meng Weng Wong wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:57PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> | | Personally, I feel that the consent approach is correct. >> | >> I agree. Here is my perspective on the issue. >> >> Consent-based email is already possible. Any MTA is free to reject any >> message for any reason. The problem lies in distinguishing wanted mail >> from unwanted. There are two parts to this problem. The first is a >> problem in politics; the second, deception. >> >> 1) The difference between "wanted" and "unwanted" is a personal decision. >> >> Historically, ISPs have had to decide site-wide policies by fiat. >> Such policies try to do the best thing for the greatest number, and >> are essentially political: no matter what you do, there is always a >> minority who'll be guaranteed to be upset. >> >> Today it is hard for individual persons to express their preferences >> at the SMTP front line. >> >> The major MTAs are constructed on the philosophy of "be liberal in >> what you receive." They did not anticipate that one day they might >> need to represent their recipients' preferences when talking to the >> SMTP client. If one user wants to use one DNSBL, and another user >> wants to use a different one, too bad. Everybody eats the same meal. >> >> It doesn't have to be that way. At root, even though its symptoms >> are social, this is a technical problem with a technical solution. >> >> Everybody should not have to do what the majority wants to. >> >> Everybody should get to do what they want to do. >> >> At Pobox.com we are developing an SMTP proxy, intended for use with >> Postfix but adaptable to other MTAs, which will perform per-user >> database lookups. >> >> With this technology, individual users can choose their own consent >> mechanisms such as DNSBLs, RHSBLs, sender address verification, >> unknown sender domain policy, whitelists, blacklists, you name it. >> >> That way, if they're not happy with the defaults, they are free to >> make their own decisions. If they don't like blackholes.easynet.nl, >> they can use sbl.spamhaus.org. If they don't like sender address >> verification, they can turn it off or reduce a 5xx reject to an >> advisory header. >> >> That solves the first problem. >> The consent framework does not specify where and how the processing take place. As I stated in a separate message, that is left to the implementors. This can be done on an MTA level with the user specifying settings - the more users will demand it, the more ISPs will support it. It can also be done by the MUA or via a proxy. The solution you are proposing is one of many possibilities. >> 2) Even if you have comprehensive sender whitelists and blacklists, >> they are beggared by the problem of forgery. >> >> You want to get mail from service@paypal.com. Anyone can claim to be >> service@paypal.com. If you whitelist service@paypal.com, you will >> get spam. >> >> This is also a technological limitation. RMX/SPF aims at this >> problem. >> >> Widespread adoption of an RMX/SPF strategy by industry leaders will >> solve the second problem. >> >> Once we overcome these two obstacles, we can move on to more interesting >> things, like reimagining email and building automated reputation systems. In the consent framework input can come from many sources. The person's email address in a white-list is only one such source. Forgin can be mitigated by analyzing the source IP of the message against blacklists, sending a C/R message, digitial signatures, RMX, etc. There are many solutions possible, all of which will fit within the consent framework if there are standards in place for them to work with each other. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 14:53:27 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 OAA19563 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58ZS-0003GQ-UU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:53:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Ir2QA012540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:53:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58ZS-0003GB-Pc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:53:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19537 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ZP-0005Cb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ZP-0005CY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58ZR-0003E4-59; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58YX-0003BZ-VF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:06 -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 OAA19517 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58YU-0005CP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:02 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58YU-0005CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:02 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A4126540114; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:53:06 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:00:48 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOJDbvDEzIXeaLcSy6NEjPtOBz4YQACLIdg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Kee Hinckley" , , "Brad Knowles" 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, 2 Oct 2003 08:54:17 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This may just be an issue of semantics. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is more of a BCP than an adjustment to CRI. So maybe the right approach is to solidfy the BCP for CR and then make sure your CRI examples respect the BCP. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:43 AM > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >=20 >=20 > I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience=20 > from someone who understands CR systems. >=20 > Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles=20 > automation and loop avoidance. >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Yakov > > Shafranovich > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM > > To: Peter Kay > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >=20 > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as=20 > a basis for=20 > > our BCP: > >=20 > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > >=20 > > Peter Kay wrote: > > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > > > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond=20 > with the same=20 > > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > > > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to=20 > "support@domain.com", did > your > > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of=20 > "support@domain.com" or was it=20 > > > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > > >>To: Eric Dean > > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > >> > > >> > > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > > >> > > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > > >> > > >>don't think > > >> > > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to > > >> > > >>carry various > > >> > > >>>protocol information. > > >> > > >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate=20 > with more=20 > > >>than just other CR systems. > > >> > > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support > system. > > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by=20 > doing a MAIL=20 > > >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system=20 > > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our=20 > > >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One=20 > went to the=20 > > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't > have > > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we=20 > > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge=20 > that as well).=20 > > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which=20 > > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it > gets > > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that=20 > stunt). That=20 > > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no=20 > > >>damage there, just annoyance. > > >> > > >>So here's the count of messages sent. > > >> > > >>User - 1 > > >>Support System - 2 > > >>CR System - 2 > > >> > > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear=20 > out. And the=20 > > >>user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their > support > > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At=20 > which point=20 > > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the > challenge. > > >> > > >>-- > > >>Kee Hinckley > > >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > > >>http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and > Society > > >> > > >>I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so=20 > unwilling to=20 > > >>accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so=20 > > >>eager to regulate everyone else's. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 14:55:25 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 OAA19700 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58bR-0003Zu-4a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:55:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92It5Do013734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:55:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58bQ-0003ZR-R6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:55:04 -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 OAA19649 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58bN-0005F6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:55:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58bN-0005F3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:55:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58bO-0003TR-IU; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58au-0003Sk-G0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:54:32 -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 OAA19626 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ar-0005E5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:54:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ar-0005DD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:54:29 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM5003NA8G7SK@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:53:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Cc: Brad Knowles Message-id: <3F7C7404.7040107@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 7. Best Current Practices - update Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:52:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, The Best Current Practices (BCP) are is being coordinated by Brad Knowles. A separate mailing list has been setup for that area to facilitate discussions regarding writing and editing BCP documents. If you would like to help in this area with things such as compiling ideas from the Internet and the archive, editing, writing or just commenting and reviewing, please contact Brad or post a message. Suggestions are welcome, Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 15:09:24 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 PAA20864 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58oy-0004Hl-In for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:09:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92J94oS016467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:09:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58oy-0004HW-Ea for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:09:04 -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 PAA20781 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ov-0005Q0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:09:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58ov-0005Px-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A58ou-0004FP-Pu; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58o4-0004Dg-TZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:08:08 -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 PAA20651 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58o1-0005Ou-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:08:05 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58o1-0005Or-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:08:05 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h92J7efa001635; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:08:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F7C7404.7040107@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7C7404.7040107@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. Best Current Practices - update Cc: ASRG list , Brad Knowles 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, 2 Oct 2003 21:03:27 +0200 At 2:52 PM -0400 2003/10/02, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The Best Current Practices (BCP) are is being coordinated by Brad Knowles. > A separate mailing list has been setup for that area to facilitate > discussions regarding writing and editing BCP documents. If you would like > to help in this area with things such as compiling ideas from the Internet > and the archive, editing, writing or just commenting and reviewing, please > contact Brad or post a message. The list information is at . The list is not advertised, so if you don't know the URL, you won't find it. Subscription requests have to be approved, and you have to be a subscriber to post or read the archives (I'm trying to find a way to make the archives publicly accessible, but not advertised). -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 15:13:30 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 PAA21349 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58sr-0004jA-G2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:13:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92JD5TP018173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:13:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58sr-0004j2-B1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21289 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58sq-0005V6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:13:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58sp-0005V2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:13:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58sk-0004aL-H5; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:12:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A58sh-0004ZB-Hv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:12:55 -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 PAA21262 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58sg-0005Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:12:54 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A58sf-0005UW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:12:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 15070 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 19:12:48 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 19:12:48 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:12:42 -0500 At 04:15 AM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > If you don't control the other machine, how are you going to > control what they use for MPC? If you don't control the anti-spam > settings for the other machine, how are you going to control what spam > gets into your system? You don't seem to belive that trust can be created between two systems. If you're right, AMTP will not work. Personally, I think it will. In my vision, *most* systems will follow the rules. Those that don't will try to obfuscate and hide and lie. With authenticated connections they will be easier to find and isolate. That sounds to me more manageable than what we have today. >> The EHLO reply preemptive MPC feature is not for everyone. I'm assuming >> most large ISPs will not use it. But it's an excellent solution for >> corporate mail servers where the corporation wants to control costs and >> set company-wide policies. > Homogenous network environments where the same policy is applied > to everyone is not going to be a particularly large subset of users. My research suggests that a significant number of corporate and community (co-ops, municipalities, user groups, etc.) admins want server-wide policies. ISPs have more complex needs and will use per-recipient settings, and even some per-sender settings. (Note that per-sender settings *can* be advertised in the EHLO reply.) >> But I expect many ISPs to have various >> settings available for their users to set on a recipient-specific >> basis. Like they do now with spam filters. > Which implies that we need some sort of mechanism to be able to > communicate this information later in the SMTP dialog. Yes, that's done in response to the RCPT command (section 4.4.3 -- see the last example, page 11). > Moreover, if we had that, and could advertise that information > via EHLO, everyone would be better off -- homogenous network environments > applying the same policy to everyone would be able to continue to do so, > while heterogeneous network environments with per-user control over these > features would also be able to make use of this functionality. That's done in the RCPT response. You seem to be suggesting a per-recipient advertisement of MPC values. I decided against that to keep down the number of round-trips. As the spec currently stands, a client doesn't get per-user MPC values, it just gets 250 or 550 (or occasionally 451) reply codes for each RCPT. I considered advertising the per-recipient settings as a way to preempt further transmissions from a sender, but that quickly became overly complex to implement. In the EHLO response, the MPC advertisement is really only there as a convenience to preemptively abort conversations that are guaranteed to result in a 550 response later on. It's not vital to the operation of the protocol, but it can be handy in some circumstances. > Of course, this doesn't solve the problem with backup MXes. Or > senders that ignore this feature because it is inconvenient. Do you mean "senders that ignore the MPC values in the EHLO response"? They will get a 550 later in the conversation. And they risk getting added to a CRL. Backup AMTP servers may well need some extra logic. I will give that some more thought and see if I can find something that needs to be addressed in the spec. --Bill --- "He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemy's life." --Nietzsche ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ Bill Weinman Gimme back my email! - _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 15:39:33 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 PAA22556 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59I7-0005il-Qa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:39:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92JdBpo021988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:39:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59I7-0005iZ-Lq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 PAA22541 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59I6-0005kO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:39:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59I6-0005kL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:39:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Hx-0005gT-EN; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59HZ-0005g7-NA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:38:37 -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 PAA22528 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59HY-0005k6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:38:36 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59HX-0005k3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:38:35 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h92JcVfU003389; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:38:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Brad Knowles , 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, 2 Oct 2003 21:38:34 +0200 At 2:12 PM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: > My research suggests that a significant number of corporate and community > (co-ops, municipalities, user groups, etc.) admins want server-wide > policies. Agreed. > ISPs have more complex needs and will use per-recipient > settings, and even some per-sender settings. (Note that per-sender > settings *can* be advertised in the EHLO reply.) Also true. The issue is that the protocol must be designed so as to handle the more complex case, while the simpler case falls out naturally. And you do have to keep in mind how to handle situations where the backup MXes do not have the same policies as the primaries, or where they may not be MCP-enabled at all. > That's done in the RCPT response. You seem to be suggesting a > per-recipient advertisement of MPC values. I decided against that to > keep down the number of round-trips. As the spec currently stands, a > client doesn't get per-user MPC values, it just gets 250 or 550 (or > occasionally 451) reply codes for each RCPT. You could advertise site-wide policies in the EHLO greeting, but otherwise you could only advertise that your server is MCP-enabled, which may have some impact in the interpretation of SMTP reply codes or extended response codes. > Do you mean "senders that ignore the MPC values in the EHLO response"? > They will get a 550 later in the conversation. And they risk getting > added to a CRL. If the sender is not MPC-enabled, you might end up blacklisting your backup MX. If you ensure that doesn't happen, what you guarantee is that people can by-pass your MPC settings by going through the backup MX instead. Putting us right back to where we are today. > Backup AMTP servers may well need some extra logic. I will give that > some more thought and see if I can find something that needs to be > addressed in the spec. Even if you can't solve the problem, you need to be explicit in the acknowledgement of the issue and point out what the administrators will need to do. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 15:42:25 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 PAA22641 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Kt-0005zJ-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Jg3K2023011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Kt-0005z3-PM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22627 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:41:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Ks-0005lk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Kr-0005lh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Kq-0005sA-Sz; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A59Kn-0005rw-Kw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:41:57 -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 PAA22624 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Km-0005le-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:41:56 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Kl-0005lb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:41:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 44505 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Oct 2003 19:41:49 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Message-ID: <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:41:49 +0200 On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that > will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The > instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that > will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. - '*' records in DNS are really bad. If spammers spoof the source address like in @joe.example.com attacked MTAs can easily block @joe.example.com. If there is a '*' RR as in *.example.com MX 100 mail.example.com. they can use @qrwepuiqergqre.example.com and the only chance to block them is to block example.com as a whole. - most MTA (at least qmail, postfix, sendmail and IMHO exim, also) provide for user extensions, so joe@example.com can also have full control ober all addresses like joe-asrg@example.com joe-jokes@example.com joe-list-irtf-asrg@example.com Look at my From: line for an example. I - and many others - use this for years and I have a maex-net-*@space.net catchall. If I have to leave an email address somewhere on the net I always use maex-net-example.com@space.net which makes it easy to track and easy to block. - this is not of big value for spam prevention and tracking any more. I've seen attacks that clearly had my "maex-qmail@space.net" address as source of the harvesters that sent a bulk for maex-qmail@space.net maexqmail@space.net maex@space.net qmail@space.net and I've seen attacks with fresh addresses like joe-homepage@example.com that started about 3 days after the webpage went online and that *only* went to joe@example.com (no spam to joe@example.com before). - the most useful part of the draft is probably 4.-7. - overall the draft IMHO has too less "beef" to be helpful in general. And in will in no way reduce spam. \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 Thu Oct 2 15:43:28 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 PAA22694 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Lq-00068L-Qt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:43:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Jh2DF023568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:43:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Lq-00067u-KP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:43:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22674 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Lp-0005mg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:43:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Lo-0005md-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:43:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Lo-00060e-It; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A59LL-0005zX-BR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22639 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59LJ-0005m1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:29 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59LJ-0005ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:42:29 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id DEDFB18DD2; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:29:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , , "'Brad Knowles'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <011801c3891c$e0faac80$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:39:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You have an excellent point...was that a self-nomination? 8-) > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Kay > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:54 PM > To: Eric Dean; Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: Kee Hinckley; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > This may just be an issue of semantics. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is > more of a BCP than an adjustment to CRI. So maybe the right approach is > to solidfy the BCP for CR and then make sure your CRI examples respect > the BCP. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:43 AM > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay > > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > > > I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience > > from someone who understands CR systems. > > > > Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles > > automation and loop avoidance. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Yakov > > > Shafranovich > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM > > > To: Peter Kay > > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as > > a basis for > > > our BCP: > > > > > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > > > > Peter Kay wrote: > > > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > > > > > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond > > with the same > > > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > > > > > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to > > "support@domain.com", did > > your > > > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of > > "support@domain.com" or was it > > > > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > > > >>To: Eric Dean > > > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > > > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > > > >> > > > >>don't think > > > >> > > > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to > > > >> > > > >>carry various > > > >> > > > >>>protocol information. > > > >> > > > >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate > > with more > > > >>than just other CR systems. > > > >> > > > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support > > system. > > > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by > > doing a MAIL > > > >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His CR system > > > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our > > > >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One > > went to the > > > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't > > have > > > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we > > > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge > > that as well). > > > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which > > > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it > > gets > > > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that > > stunt). That > > > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so no > > > >>damage there, just annoyance. > > > >> > > > >>So here's the count of messages sent. > > > >> > > > >>User - 1 > > > >>Support System - 2 > > > >>CR System - 2 > > > >> > > > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear > > out. And the > > > >>user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their > > support > > > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At > > which point > > > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the > > challenge. > > > >> > > > >>-- > > > >>Kee Hinckley > > > >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > > > >>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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 2 15:55:34 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 PAA23135 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Xc-0006ca-AR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:55:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92JtC5G025446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:55:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Xc-0006cL-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:55:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23113 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Xa-0005wd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:55:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Xa-0005wa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:55:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59XS-0006Zb-Mf; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59Wd-0006Yn-MT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:54:11 -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 PAA23072 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Wc-0005vn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:54:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59Wb-0005vV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:54:09 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.129.119]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500CE8B5CZ2@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:51:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing In-reply-to: <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7C815B.6080604@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.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: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:49:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that >> will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The >> instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that >> will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. > > > - the most useful part of the draft is probably 4.-7. > > - overall the draft IMHO has too less "beef" to be helpful in general. > And in will in no way reduce spam. This document is an Internet draft and is on its way to the RFC Editor. Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC? Comments, anyone? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 16:06:39 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 QAA23484 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59iB-00074W-82 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92K67aB027178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:06:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59iB-00074H-30 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:07 -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 QAA23453 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:05:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59i9-00063z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59i9-00063w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59i4-00072A-T5; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59hk-00071t-Rq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:05:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23439 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59hj-00063l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:05:39 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59hi-00063F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:05:38 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A5525FE0130; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:06:42 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:14:27 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <1f55d26f-0673-407a-953b-369b2292f313> 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOJHdlF32eXROmgQVepaaqFrUPGKgAArL0g From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Kee Hinckley" , , "Brad Knowles" 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, 2 Oct 2003 10:07:56 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd rather just make more noise! :) Seriously, though, I'm committed to first run through the spam analysis project that's on my plate for this group, and once that's done I will attempt a CR BCP. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:39 AM > To: Peter Kay; 'Yakov Shafranovich' > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >=20 >=20 > You have an excellent point...was that a self-nomination? 8-) >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Peter > > Kay > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:54 PM > > To: Eric Dean; Yakov Shafranovich > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >=20 > > This may just be an issue of semantics. Perhaps what I'm=20 > suggesting is=20 > > more of a BCP than an adjustment to CRI. So maybe the right approach > is > > to solidfy the BCP for CR and then make sure your CRI=20 > examples respect=20 > > the BCP. > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:43 AM > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay > > > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience from=20 > > > someone who understands CR systems. > > > > > > Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles=20 > automation=20 > > > and loop avoidance. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Yakov > > > > Shafranovich > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM > > > > To: Peter Kay > > > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop=20 > Avoidance > > > > > > > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as > > > a basis for > > > > our BCP: > > > > > > > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > > > > > > Peter Kay wrote: > > > > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > > > > > > > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond > > > with the same > > > > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > > > > > > > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to > > > "support@domain.com", did > > > your > > > > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of > > > "support@domain.com" or was it > > > > > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > > > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > > > > >>To: Eric Dean > > > > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > > > > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop > Avoidance > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > > > > >> > > > > >>don't think > > > > >> > > > > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to > > > > >> > > > > >>carry various > > > > >> > > > > >>>protocol information. > > > > >> > > > > >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate > > > with more > > > > >>than just other CR systems. > > > > >> > > > > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support > > > system. > > > > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by > > > doing a MAIL > > > > >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His=20 > CR system=20 > > > > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce=20 > report from our=20 > > > > >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One > > > went to the > > > > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject,=20 > so it didn't > > > have > > > > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we=20 > > > > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge > > > that as well). > > > > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail=20 > server, which=20 > > > > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather=20 > than when it > > > gets > > > > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that > > > stunt). That > > > > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so > no > > > > >>damage there, just annoyance. > > > > >> > > > > >>So here's the count of messages sent. > > > > >> > > > > >>User - 1 > > > > >>Support System - 2 > > > > >>CR System - 2 > > > > >> > > > > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear > > > out. And the > > > > >>user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their > > > support > > > > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At > > > which point > > > > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the > > > challenge. > > > > >> > > > > >>-- > > > > >>Kee Hinckley > > > > >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation=20 > Spam Defense > > > > >>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=20 > they are so=20 > > > > >>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 > > > > > > > > > > >=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 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 16:11:28 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 QAA23634 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59n0-0007Wy-Os for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92KB6dY028942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:11:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59n0-0007Wj-8R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23617 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59my-00066G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59my-00066D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59mv-0007TF-Ry; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59m1-0007Sg-8Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:10:05 -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 QAA23608 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59lz-00065w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:10:03 -0400 Received: from cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com ([69.132.32.64] helo=CMK4) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59lz-00065t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:10:03 -0400 Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id A72D376F01AE; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:14:37 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:14:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <1200.192.168.0.7.1065125677.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 2 Oct 2003 16:14:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit You mention that the draft lacks "beef", well before it was a lot better in my opinion, but the RFC Editor didn't like it, so i revised it to make it more compact and more direct. Now that I think about it, the host-based portion is only logical when there are few enough users to actually be able to configure each sub-domain by hand. On a larger scale, such as for ISPs the hypened or dotted notations would make more sense. The point of the draft is more of to make the proccess of sorting and deleting SPAM easier than to block specific senders. I personally have my sub-domain manually specified and have my server allowing the nobody alias to function (but the server is making a log of what incoming addresses are used in case that needs to change), and then any address that gets spammed is specified manually as an alias and pointed to a seperate SPAM account which i skim over about once a week. The procedure that the draft specifies is by no means a 100% cure for SPAM, but in my implementations for personal use and for about 50 other people it has been very effective. Curtis > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system >> that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The >> instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that >> will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. > > - '*' records in DNS are really bad. > If spammers spoof the source address like in > @joe.example.com > attacked MTAs can easily block @joe.example.com. > If there is a '*' RR as in > *.example.com MX 100 mail.example.com. > they can use > @qrwepuiqergqre.example.com > and the only chance to block them is to block example.com as a whole. > > - most MTA (at least qmail, postfix, sendmail and IMHO exim, also) > provide for user extensions, so > joe@example.com > can also have full control ober all addresses like > joe-asrg@example.com > joe-jokes@example.com > joe-list-irtf-asrg@example.com > Look at my From: line for an example. I - and many others - use this > for years and I have a maex-net-*@space.net catchall. If I have to > leave an email address somewhere on the net I always use > maex-net-example.com@space.net > which makes it easy to track and easy to block. > > - this is not of big value for spam prevention and tracking any more. > I've seen attacks that clearly had my "maex-qmail@space.net" address > as source of the harvesters that sent a bulk for > maex-qmail@space.net > maexqmail@space.net > maex@space.net > qmail@space.net > and I've seen attacks with fresh addresses like > joe-homepage@example.com > that started about 3 days after the webpage went online and that > *only* went to joe@example.com (no spam to joe@example.com before). > > - the most useful part of the draft is probably 4.-7. > > - overall the draft IMHO has too less "beef" to be helpful in general. > And in will in no way reduce spam. > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) > 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 > (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer > system is reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 16:13:24 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 QAA23685 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59ot-0007ef-Im for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:13:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92KD34f029419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59ot-0007eQ-EU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:13:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23675 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59or-00067C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:13:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59or-000679-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:13:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59or-0007cC-V6; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A59oP-0007bN-77 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:12:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23670 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59oN-000676-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:12:31 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59oM-000673-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:12:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 44766 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Oct 2003 20:12:30 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: ASRG list Cc: Markus Stumpf Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Message-ID: <20031002201230.GC36339@Space.Net> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> <3F7C815B.6080604@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F7C815B.6080604@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:12:30 +0200 On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 03:49:47PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > This document is an Internet draft and is on its way to the RFC Editor. > Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC? > Comments, anyone? IMHO it is not. It describes in no way a "mail system that will reduce the amount of SPAM". And there are tons of open questions ... When I read this I had the feeling this document is like: Title: "This document describes a new way to explore space" Content: Let's fly to Mars and using a rocket would probably be a good idea. \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 Thu Oct 2 16:25:31 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 QAA24043 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A0c-0008Os-B4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:25:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92KPAxw032287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:25:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A0c-0008Og-2T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:25:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24039 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A0a-0006Ef-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:25:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A0Z-0006Ec-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:25:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A0U-0008L4-5t; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:25:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A59zu-0008KS-2Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:24:26 -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 QAA24014 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59zs-0006Dp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:24:24 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A59zr-0006Dm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 44851 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Oct 2003 20:24:22 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Curtis M. Kularski" Cc: maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Message-ID: <20031002202422.GD36339@Space.Net> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <20031002194149.GB36339@Space.Net> <1200.192.168.0.7.1065125677.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200.192.168.0.7.1065125677.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:24:22 +0200 On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:14:37PM -0400, Curtis M. Kularski wrote: > The point of the draft is more of to make the proccess of sorting and > deleting SPAM easier than to block specific senders. I personally have my > sub-domain manually specified and have my server allowing the nobody alias > to function (but the server is making a log of what incoming addresses are > used in case that needs to change), and then any address that gets spammed > is specified manually as an alias and pointed to a seperate SPAM account > which i skim over about once a week. The procedure that the draft > specifies is by no means a 100% cure for SPAM, but in my implementations > for personal use and for about 50 other people it has been very effective. Yes, it works for me, too. I had a webpage for a limited time frame and used a special email address. 4 weeks after the time frame was over I blocked the address in the mailserver and spam went away. But in which way is your system in principle different from a TMDA (Tagged Message Delivery Agent) system? http://tmda.net/ and especially http://tmda.net/config-client.html Isn't the system described there not even more flexible and successful than yours? \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 Thu Oct 2 16:30:27 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 QAA24310 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A5O-0000Gp-IA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:30:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92KU6Wh001033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:30:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A5O-0000Ga-5Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:30:06 -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 QAA24260 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A5M-0006Ke-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:30:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A5M-0006Kb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:30:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A5K-0000DV-I1; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5A4k-0000CQ-VV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:29:27 -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 QAA24223 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A4j-0006Iq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:29:25 -0400 Received: from cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com ([69.132.32.64] helo=CMK4) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5A4i-0006In-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:29:24 -0400 Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id ABB737B601AE; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:33:59 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:33:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <1240.192.168.0.7.1065126839.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <3F7C815B.6080604@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <3F7C815B.6080604@solidmatrix.com> Cc: , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 2 Oct 2003 16:33:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think it would be helpful if I posted a link to where my old drafts can be accessed: http://curtis.kularski.us/internet-drafts. draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-03 was the document I previously sent to the RFC editor for review, and I was told the following regarding the draft: " There MIGHT be room for a clever new idea that was succinctly and clearly described. Unfortunately, your document needs to be rewritten to be clear about the essential idea you are suggesting." That is what I tried to do in 05, as well as address some possible DNS issues in 03 that were also mentioned by the RFC Editor (not posted here because the Editor misunderstood some aspects of the draft). I think the main problem with my drafts has been that I am focusing on what has been successful in a relatively small implementation and not able to see what would work best for everyone else. This draft is not meant to set a standard of any type, this draft's purpose is to provide documentation of one possible way to deal with SPAM. This method isn't for everyone, but I feel that it could be useful to a lot of people who are in a situation where there is more than one user on the domain, but yet there isn't a huge amount of users on the domain either. My personal implementation of the procedure is more like what is mentioned in draft 03, and I think that draft 05 is starting to stray a little from the original intent. The reason for the sub-domain and not the user dotted or user hyphened format is because it is more of a clean address, not complicated and lengthy. I really appreachiate input that is given about the draft and I hope that I can find ways to address all of the concerns. Curtis > Markus Stumpf wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>> This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system >>> that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The >>> instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that >>> will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. >> >> >> - the most useful part of the draft is probably 4.-7. >> >> - overall the draft IMHO has too less "beef" to be helpful in general. >> And in will in no way reduce spam. > > This document is an Internet draft and is on its way to the RFC Editor. > Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC? > Comments, anyone? > > Yakov > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 16:47:28 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 QAA24931 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5ALr-0001Sq-9R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92Kl71M005622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5ALr-0001Sb-4w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -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 QAA24917 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5ALp-0006Y4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:47:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5ALo-0006Y1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:47:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5ALl-0001QG-4y; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5AKt-0001Pe-6U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:46:07 -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 QAA24890 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5AKr-0006XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:46:05 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5AKq-0006XD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:46:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 45225 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Oct 2003 20:46:03 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Bill Weinman Cc: Brad Knowles , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Message-ID: <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:46:03 +0200 On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:12:42PM -0500, Bill Weinman wrote: > In my vision, *most* systems will follow the rules. Those that don't will > try to obfuscate and hide and lie. With authenticated connections they will > be easier to find and isolate. That sounds to me more manageable than what > we have today. RFC 3207 - SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security - describes STARTTLS that can be used for TLS connections. Clients can e.g. make a normal SMTP connection and switch to TLS immediately. This (though patches) is available for nearly all MTAs I know of. I have never seen it used, however. A friend of mine told me 3 or 4 months ago that he has about 10 TLS connections a week (out of some 10000 a day) and it is always the same server. RFC 3207 provides already the TLS/X.509 part on AMTP. > That's done in the RCPT response. You seem to be suggesting a per-recipient > advertisement of MPC values. I decided against that to keep down the number > of round-trips. As the spec currently stands, a client doesn't get per-user > MPC values, it just gets 250 or 550 (or occasionally 451) reply codes for > each RCPT. Hmmm ... you can save the round trip making ESMTP PIPELINING mandatory. > Do you mean "senders that ignore the MPC values in the EHLO response"? They > will get a 550 later in the conversation. And they risk getting added to a > CRL. You surely mean "block list" and not CRL. CAs certify identity and if I'd buy a cert that correctly says "you are mail.example.com" and they'd revoke it because I don't stick to MPC I'd sue them to Pluto and back. And exactly this is the reason why I don't "trust": 1) I don't trust CAs in general, because they have done (Verisign/Microsoft) and probably do enough bullshit with certs. (If I look at what happens when customers buy certs ... oh my god). 2) Certs do say nothing about "good" or "bad". They *try* to help with identification. A CA certifies: "this domain/address belongs to company X or person Y". That's all. And just like I don't trust everyone on the street and give him my house key only because he can show me a valid (governmental) identity card, I don't trust any connecting host more than I would do without a cert. With all the webservers and https the real meaning of a cert has been perverted by Joe Loser and Jane Journalist. And no, I don't want a centralised CA for mailservers. Look at the DNS wildcard issue and you can see what happens if you give one company too much power. And coincidentially this company is also a CA. Holy bullshit. \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 Thu Oct 2 17:50:36 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 RAA27085 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5BKx-00052z-Rq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:50:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92LoFxs019395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:50:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5BKx-00052k-NJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:50:15 -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 RAA27079 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5BKv-0007DR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:50:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5BKu-0007DO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:50:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5BKk-00050V-An; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5BJx-0004xH-JO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 RAA27062 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5BJu-0007D0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:49:10 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5BJt-0007Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:49:10 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h92Ln3fU011373; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:49:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Bill Weinman , Brad Knowles , 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, 2 Oct 2003 23:38:13 +0200 At 10:46 PM +0200 2003/10/02, Markus Stumpf wrote: > RFC 3207 - SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer > Security - describes STARTTLS that can be used for TLS connections. TLSSMTP can really screw things up. I keep getting these bounces from a person on Declan McCullagh's Politech mailing list: From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:55:23 -0400 (EDT) from vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... Deferred: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed. Message could not be delivered for 5 days Message will be deleted from queue Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp-4.his.com Arrival-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Final-Recipient: RFC822; george@ellenburg.org Action: failed Status: 4.4.7 Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed. Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:19:25 -0400 (EDT) The problem is that if TLSSMTP is advertised, the systems try to use that instead and ignore anything else. If there is a failure, they don't fall back to unencrypted channels. This may be what you want in situations requiring encryption, but you shouldn't be forced down this path in the case of opportunistic encryption. You need to be careful to avoid creating the same kind of trap in other circumstances. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 19:10:34 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 TAA00215 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5CaM-0000Lj-3z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:10:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92NAEHm001337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:10:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5CaL-0000LU-TF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:10:13 -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 TAA00212 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5CaI-00005v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5CaI-00005s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:10:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5CaA-0000JF-8j; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A5CZz-0000Il-P0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:09:51 -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 TAA00198 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5CZw-00005c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:09:48 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5CZv-00005T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:09:47 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id A07BB580134; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:10:51 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:18:35 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <7667c358-1775-4196-9310-a181503dd4ba> 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] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Thread-Index: AcOJH4/87YK3774sQ6udp5VgmSodHAAGpuAg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "ASRG list" 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, 2 Oct 2003 13:12:04 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My comment: > > Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC?=20 >=20 I'm sorry but I'm too ignorant of the RFC process to understand "how worthwhile" a document needs to be in order to be published. I'm having a hard time seeing the significant differences this document proposes over what disposable email addresses do, like spamex.com Our own product's "KeyMail" address has very, very similar features. If "innovative" or "previously mostly unknown" is a requirement for an RFC, then by that definition I don't think this is worthwhile. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 20:22:35 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 UAA01901 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Di1-0003Ji-CF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:22:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h930MDei012744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:22:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Di1-0003JT-4U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:22:13 -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 UAA01893 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Dhy-0000gx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:22:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Dhy-0000gu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:22:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Dhp-0003HK-7Z; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Dhk-0003Gz-Tr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01883 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Dhi-0000gf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:21:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Dhi-0000gb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:21:54 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.136.8]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM500JEQNIQRH@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:18:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing In-reply-to: To: Peter Kay Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG list Message-id: <3F7CC04C.6070303@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:18:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Peter Kay wrote: > My comment: > > >>Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC? >> > > > I'm sorry but I'm too ignorant of the RFC process to understand "how > worthwhile" a document needs to be in order to be published. > From the RFC Editor: " Our criteria for individual submissions are very general: a document should be technically competent and potentially useful. We particularly seek your advice on technical competence -- we don't like to publish something is is embarrassingly wrong, although controversial can be OK. Your comments on utility will also be useful. You can ask yourself: if this document is published as RFC xxxx, can you imagine a future technical discussion in the IETF or outside directing readers to RFC xxxx? " _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 21:07:31 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 VAA03158 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EPV-0005YQ-GF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:07:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93179nv021341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:07:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EPU-0005Y3-Sp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:07:08 -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 VAA03147 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EPS-000180-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EPR-00017x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:07:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EPN-0005ST-MX; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EOo-0005Rl-5Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:06:26 -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 VAA03137 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EOl-00017b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:06:23 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EOl-00017Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:06:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 14954 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 01:06:24 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 01:06:24 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Markus Stumpf From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031002164443.GA36339@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:06:18 -0500 At 11:44 AM 10/2/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:16:39PM -0500, Bill Weinman wrote: > > I added this language to the next draft version: > > > > If there is no MPC declaration in the EHLO reply, "ALLOW */*" is > > implied and the client may proceed. > >Ok. So it is also "legal" for a Server to send a > ALLOW */* (which means no restrictions) >and later on do > C: RCPT TO: > S: 550 MPC policy violation >i.e. oviously "lie" about the initial MPC policy declaration :-))) Yes, it's legal and (yeah, I saw the emoticon) I wouldn't call it a lie. ;^) I've clarified the meanings of the preemptive declarations in the EHLO reply for the next draft -- and I'll revisit it to make sure the intent is clear. > > >As a roaming user I might want to relay a email with a MPC that > > >[snip] > > I don't really understand the question. Why would a user relay a message? >Example: you have a large company with field workers. You have contracts > with various service providers. The notebooks autoconfigure. If you >[ snip ] The server doesn't have to wait for the AUTH command to know who is connecting. The certificate is presented during the TLS handshake. In a circumstance like that, the various servers involved in the agreement could all agree to accept a certain private CA signer, and choose a policy set that conforms to that agreed upon in the contract. > > In AMTP, a message cannot be relayed from one "public" MTA to another > > "public" MTA. In your example, all but one transaction would be > > accomplished with private network connections (i.e., using > privately-signed > > certificates). >I don't understand that. I suggest you read section 5 and section 7 more closely, then ask your question again. You and I are talking apples and oranges on this subject. >Assume the following example: > Dialin-User at DialinProvider A > -1-> In-MTA at EmailProvider B > -2-> Out-MTA at EmailProvider B > -3-> MTA at ISP C > -4-> MailGate at Customer D (of ISP C) > -5-> Internal Mailserver at Customer D According to my vision all except 2->3 are "private network connections". >All MTAs in that scenario either would have to use ACCEPT */* als MPC >declaration or may not have a less restrictive MPC declaration than >"Internal Mailserver at Customer D" or else their policy will dictate >the what the recipient will (not) see. Actually I think a *lot* of ISPs (especially free mail providers) will use "ACCEPT */individual", with some adding "ACCEPT */autoresponder". All of those connections can benefit from AMTP. The private connections can gain tremendous flexibility by authenticating the connecting client and using specific policies for those clients. >>>Why don't you also define authentification/trust policies for the >>>receiving host? >>>[snip] >>I had that in the first draft, but I became convinced that it was >>unnecessary. >>[snip] >It would add security. DNS spoofying still takes places as there are >enough broken DNS caches out there. Requiring a valid (and CA signed) key >not only on the sending but also on the receiving side would IMHO be >fair and add security. And as the receiving MTA probably wishes to send >out emails itself it would be required to have a valid (and CA signed) >key anyway. Can you document that? I have not seen evidence of DNS spoofing in email sufficient to warrant an extra burden on the whole system to protect against it. If DNS is the problem, wouldn't DNS be a better place to deal with it? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >SRV records >Dan Bernstein describes MXPS - the Mail Exchanger Protocol Switch > http://cr.yp.to/im/mxps.html I considered that approach, but I felt that it was messy and overloaded the MX distance field. It could also confuse an SMTP server that didn't understand the unconventional usage. SRV seems to me a perfect fit. What exactly is your objection to SRV? > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >AMTP + SMTP > > >For (at least) a grace period AMTP and SMTP have to life together. > > >How should a AMTP capable sending MTA behave? What if the destination > > That's an implementation detail, and I think that what you described is a > > smart behavior and will likely prevail during the transition period. On > the >IMHO it is important to even talk about implementation details. Yes, it's important to discuss them and I intend to. I'm writing a separate paper about it. But I don't see it as a subject for the protocol documentation. I may submit my transitional whitepaper as an I-D. I haven't really decided that yet. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 21:18:26 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 VAA03592 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ea5-0006Xs-3K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h931I5VH025154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:18:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ea4-0006Xd-TX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:04 -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 VAA03572 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Ea2-0001GO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Ea1-0001GL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ea1-0006VF-7V; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ea0-0006V3-0D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03569 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EZx-0001GI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:17:57 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EZw-0001GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:17:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 15864 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 01:17:57 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 01:17:57 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002200939.02b4d910@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:17:53 -0500 At 02:38 PM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: >> Do you mean "senders that ignore the MPC values in the EHLO response"? >> They will get a 550 later in the conversation. And they risk getting >> added to a CRL. > If the sender is not MPC-enabled, you might end up blacklisting > your backup MX. AMTP does not allow a sender that is "not MPC-enabled". The MPC argument in the MAIL command is REQUIRED (section 4.4.3). --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 21:29:35 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 VAA03982 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Eks-0007AS-43 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h931TEeL027539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ekr-0007A1-Mn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03963 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Eko-0001Oe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A5Eko-0001OZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ekf-00072m-Nx; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A5EkZ-00072W-7H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:55 -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 VAA03955 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EkW-0001OL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:52 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EkV-0001O3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:51 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h931SdfW022686; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:28:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002200939.02b4d910@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002200939.02b4d910@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Brad Knowles , 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:28:35 +0200 At 8:17 PM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: > AMTP does not allow a sender that is "not MPC-enabled". The MPC argument > in the MAIL command is REQUIRED (section 4.4.3). So, people can't implement AMTP until they can guarantee that all of their backups do? That's going to cut down on the acceptance rate.... -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 21:33:24 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 VAA04141 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EoZ-0007TV-MX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:33:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h931X3pc028727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:33:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EoZ-0007TG-Gp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04116 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EoW-0001SB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:33:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EoW-0001S8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:33:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EoX-0007MR-KV; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A5EoS-0007M9-Hf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:32:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04113 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EoP-0001S5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:32:53 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EoP-0001S2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:32:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 17111 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 01:32:53 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 01:32:53 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002201944.020035a8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Markus Stumpf From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:32:49 -0500 At 03:46 PM 10/2/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: >RFC 3207 provides already the TLS/X.509 part on AMTP. RFC 3207 section 4 has this statement: "A publicly-referenced SMTP server MUST NOT require use of the STARTTLS extension in order to deliver mail locally." That makes it impossible to use as a way of combating email abuse. Also, SMTP requires backward compatibility with non-extended versions of the protocol (RFC 2821, section 4.1.1.1). That's why AMTP couldn't work as an SMTP extension. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 2 22:14:44 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 VAA03981 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Eks-0007AR-3P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h931TEHr027540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ekr-0007A2-Nd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03965 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Eko-0001Og-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 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 1A5Eko-0001Oa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ekg-00072u-92; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:29:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5EkZ-00072b-9w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:55 -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 VAA03956 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EkW-0001OI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:52 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5EkV-0001O2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:28:51 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h931SdfU022686; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:28:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Markus Stumpf , 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:27:35 +0200 At 8:06 PM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: > Can you document that? I have not seen evidence of DNS spoofing in > email sufficient to warrant an extra burden on the whole system to > protect against it. If DNS is the problem, wouldn't DNS be a better > place to deal with it? Over 50% of the ccTLD nameservers are open public caching/recursive nameservers and vulnerable to cache pollution/poisoning. Jon Postel accidentally poisoned the caches of many of the nameservers on the net, and damn near took the whole thing down. Eugene Kashpureff did the same thing in 1997, for malicious reasons. Hell, with companies like VeriSign/NetSOL putting up wildcard records in gTLD zones and UltraDNS handing out bogus glue with the "authoritative answer" set (not to mention their use of just two exclusively anycast nameserver IP addresses), there's lots and lots of danger here. Most providers do not do edge filtering. Nor do they do bogon filtering. Nor do they do anti-spoof protection. The result is that spammers can boldly infect hundreds of thousands of machines across the 'net, and then use them as a DDoS tool to take out RBL operators with impunity. Even if people have collected the packets, traced the lines, and know precisely who is sitting where doing what, the police and the governments still won't do a damn fscking thing. If there is a potential security hole that we can perceive today and that we can reasonably address now, we should do so. If we can help mitigate this by requiring certificates, then I'd say we should require certificates. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 00:24:28 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 AAA08497 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HU2-0006GU-U3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h934O2un024076 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 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 1A5HU2-0006GF-P7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:02 -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 AAA08320 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HU0-00033X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HTz-00033U-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HU1-0006Cu-96; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HT3-00068s-7H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:01 -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 AAA08296 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:22:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HT0-00032m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:58 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HSz-00032d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:58 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2906005 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:52 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> To: ASRG list From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing 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, 3 Oct 2003 00:10:49 -0400 At 2:02 PM -0400 10/2/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that > will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The > instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that > will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. I'll confess, I haven't read it. But from the description I have several comments. 1. I've been using per-domain addresses for several years (e.g. username+webdomain@somewhere.com). I've gotten very confused at times in registration systems when a company changes it's name, but I have never received spam to any of them. Guess I don't give my address to unscrupulous companies. That said, I full expect to get spam eventually. It happened to one of my older addresses. One of the companies I gave it to went out of business and sold their address list. Which leads me to #2. 2. So I know who sold my address. What does that gain me? It certainly doesn't stop the spam. It doesn't even tell you who has the address now. 3. Spreading lots of different email addresses around is a bad idea. The fact that you know you can reject them really doesn't help. As we speak, my mail server is eating up 8-16KBs of bandwidth right now doing nothing but rejecting email sent to non-existent addresses. Yesterday some idiot on Level3's network tried to connect to our mail server 500,000 times. You do *not* want that happening to your mail server. Increasing the number of throwaway addresses simply increases the bandwidth costs of spam. 4. I gather from other comments that the technique uses wildcard addresses. I tried that just the other day. I figured I'd set up a wildcard address for somewhere.com that pointed to Versign's "service". I thought maybe they'd enjoy all the traffic from people attempting to ftp to ftp.somewhere.com, or spam smtp.somewhere.com, and so on. Three pieces of software in my network broke in the next two days and I gave up and got rid of it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 3 00:24:29 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 AAA08507 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HU1-0006EK-La for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h934O17v023891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HU1-0006Cs-5N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:24:01 -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 AAA08317 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HTy-00033Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HTy-00033M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HT3-000690-HT; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5HT2-00068k-7r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:23:00 -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 AAA08293 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HSz-00032h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:57 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5HSy-00032d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:57 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2905995; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:22:51 -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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Cc: "Eric Dean" , 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, 2 Oct 2003 23:59:10 -0400 At 6:37 AM -1000 10/2/03, Peter Kay wrote: >This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > >Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond with the same >RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > >Meaning, if the customer sent an email to "support@domain.com", did your >autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of "support@domain.com" or was it >"techsupportreply@domain.com". Fortunately it (RT in this case) responds with the same email address. Otherwise we would have had another round. Obviously that isn't always the case (I just sent an abuse notice to Level3, the response came back from a different address, and when I replied to that, I got a bounce from their internal redistribution list--that kind of thing isn't uncommon.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 3 03:19:02 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 DAA25534 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KCx-0008IW-Uq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:18:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h937IZT6031895 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:18:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KCx-0008IM-HV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:18:35 -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 DAA25493 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KCv-0004mZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:18:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KCu-0004mW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:18:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KCO-0008DO-Jf; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KBl-0008Ar-9A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:17:21 -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 DAA25465 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KBi-0004m4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:17:18 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KBi-0004m1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:17:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 7278 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 07:17:19 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 07:17:19 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031003021520.02a1c0c8@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002200939.02b4d910@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002200939.02b4d910@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:17:18 -0500 At 08:28 PM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: >At 8:17 PM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: >> AMTP does not allow a sender that is "not MPC-enabled". The MPC argument >> in the MAIL command is REQUIRED (section 4.4.3). > So, people can't implement AMTP until they can guarantee that all > of their backups do? That's going to cut down on the acceptance rate.... No, they can run AMTP and SMTP in parallel. Outgoing MTAs look for an SRV RR and use AMTP if available, otherwise fallback to SMTP. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 03:40:38 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 DAA25941 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KXw-0000sL-Kd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:40:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h937eG0H003359 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:40:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KXt-0000s4-GP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:40:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25937 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KXr-0004ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:40:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KXq-0004yX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:40:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KXl-0000nj-4B; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:40:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5KXJ-0000mE-Re for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:39:37 -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 DAA25926 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KXH-0004yE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:39:35 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5KXG-0004yB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:39:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 8121 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 07:39:37 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 07:39:37 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031003023336.02768d58@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:39:35 -0500 At 08:27 PM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > Over 50% of the ccTLD nameservers are open public > caching/recursive nameservers and vulnerable to cache pollution/poisoning. >[[snip]] I recognize that there is a problem with DNS that has potential for abuse, but I seriously question whether the mail transfer protocol is the appropriate place to deal with it. Is this problem, by itself, justification for the additional overhead of X.509 authentication for the *receiving* MTA as a requirement in the mail transfer protocol? I tend to think it's a problem that should be dealt with in DNS. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 06:55:46 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 GAA00196 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Nal-0007RS-OD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:55:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93AtNFL028600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:55:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Nal-0007RD-Bp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:55:23 -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 GAA00187 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Nah-0006cw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:55:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Nag-0006ct-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:55:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5NaQ-0007NF-HN; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Na2-0007Mi-Bz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:54:38 -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 GAA00146 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5NZx-0006c6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:54:33 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5NZx-0006c3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:54:33 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h93AsRfW066337; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:54:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002201944.020035a8@mail.bearnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002201944.020035a8@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: Markus Stumpf , 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:26:34 +0200 At 8:32 PM -0500 2003/10/02, Bill Weinman wrote: > RFC 3207 section 4 has this statement: "A publicly-referenced SMTP > server MUST NOT require use of the STARTTLS extension in order to > deliver mail locally." That makes it impossible to use as a way of > combating email abuse. As I've proven with a previous post, plenty of MTAs out there are sufficiently hosed that this requirement is not (and perhaps cannot be) enforced. We need to walk before we can run. > Also, SMTP requires backward compatibility with non-extended versions > of the protocol (RFC 2821, section 4.1.1.1). That's why AMTP couldn't > work as an SMTP extension. Which will seriously cut down the acceptance rate. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 08:19:33 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 IAA03872 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Otq-0002rt-Q7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:19:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93CJAED011019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:19:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Otq-0002re-JS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:19:10 -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 IAA03840 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Otp-00000m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:19:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Otp-00000j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:19:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Oth-0002oj-40; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Ost-0002ne-KA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:18:11 -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 IAA03811 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Oss-0007nd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:18:10 -0400 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Oss-0007na-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:18:10 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1A5Osm-0003DH-Le for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:18:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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, 03 Oct 2003 13:18:04 +0100 > The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt > Have comments been sought from the many providers of disposable address systems? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 10:27:45 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 KAA09421 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Qtu-0008JA-5q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:27:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93ERM4W031932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:27:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Qtt-0008Ix-Un for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:27:22 -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 KAA09385 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Qtr-0001RA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:27:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Qtr-0001R7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:27:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5QtY-0008Fu-MP; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Qse-0008F6-Qy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:26:05 -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 KAA09323 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Qsc-0001Pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:26:02 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Qsb-0001PI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:26:01 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id D043729C01A; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAE929C019; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A690A9300E8; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:24:16 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: "'Jonathan Morton'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: , "'Andrew Akehurst'" Message-ID: <004701c389ba$0607e950$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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: D86900e8.SMD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:24:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies for my delays... I am currently heavily involved in some critical and urgent work. I will address this at my earliest opportunity. _M |-----Original Message----- |From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk] |Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:43 AM |To: Yakov Shafranovich |Cc: asrg@ietf.org; Andrew Akehurst; Pete (Madscientist) |Subject: Re: 4d. Consent Framework - making it clearer | | |>> The "Consent Framework", while presently documented in an extremely |>> formal and opaque manner, is nothing more than a "system of |systems", |>> aimed at combining the best-of-breed proposals (the exact |ones to be |>> determined at some time in the future) into a single, cohesive, |>> implementable e-mail system. Preferably, of course, leveraging the |>> existing SMTP infrastructure, because that makes implementation |>> several orders of magnitude easier. |> |> Jonathan is correct - the consent framework seeks to tie in |all of the |> existing and future solutions into one system. The central tie-in |> point to the whole framework is the notion of consent which is |> presently absent from the email system while being present in some |> form in other messaging systems such as Instant Messaging (IM). |> |> What the consent framework tries to do is to introduce this notion in |> a standard way with protocols and formats, that can be carried over |> all anti-spam tools. But I think Jonathan has expressed this in much |> better way than me :) |> |>> I believe another goal is for additional components to be added to |>> the framework as and when necessary, and therefore the |system will be |>> governed by some extensible protocol and/or message formatting |>> standards. |> |> Correct. |> |>> The main components of the framework might be: |>> - Sender identification |>> - Whitelist for stable sender/recipient relationships |>> - Monetary payment (using tokens issued by trusted authorities, eg |>> e-stamps) |>> - Computational payment (generating tokens autonomously, eg |hashcash) |>> - Trust directories (identifying which payment and/or |authentication |>> authorities are trustworthy) |>> - Message category labelling |> |> The charter summarizes it into three components: | |Excuse me while I reshuffle these... | |> 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 is covered by "sender identification" and "trust directories". | |> o Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the |> communication system that enforce the policy. | |The remaining mechanisms in my list (except the BCPs) fill this role. | |But really, I think the distinction between the two is pretty slim. |I'd rather have one Consent Verification Component with all the |mechanisms put together. | |> o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a |> policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of |> communications | |And this, I think, is the part which hasn't really been |addressed yet - |at least, not by itself. I think the assumption has been that it'll |mostly live in the MUA, and is therefore safe to leave as a |implementation detail. Are you suggesting that the Policy Enforcement |should mostly live on the MTA, and therefore the recipient's MUA must |express consent (really, filtering preferences) by communicating with |the MTA? | |To be honest, I'm not sure that the MTA is usually in a position to |receive filtering commands from the recipient's MUA. An MUA usually |retrieves mail using POP3 or IMAP, not SMTP, which rather disconnects |it from the inbound MTA - which in large ISPs is frequently |disconnected from the outbound smarthost which the MUA *does* connect |to via SMTP. | |However, a logically separate MFA (Mail Filtering Agent) would perhaps |be plausible - SpamAssassin run in "spamd" mode might be an example of |this role. The MFA might be attached to the MTA, or be a |plugin to the |MUA, or even reside on a separate server (potentially run by |the ISP or |a third party) and be called by the MUA. | |Also, I think there's a fourth component missing from your list - the |sender has to attach the relevant metadata/tokens to the |message at (or |near) origin. Most of the mechanisms I suggest must interact |with this |component, in addition to the others. This component probably has to |include the concepts of mail-forwarding and listservs. Perhaps it |might be called the Message Introduction Component? | |Or was this what you originally meant by the Source Tracking |Component? | If so, I think the "mechanisms" as I listed would be |orthogonal to the |"components" that you speak of - so instead of placing them into one |category or the other, we have to see which mechanisms need part of |their implementation in each component. | |> Most of the items mentioned above would be source tracing components |> with the whitelist possibly being the policy enforcement component. | |No... only two of them attempt to "trace" the source of the message. |The remainder are used to find out about the "worth" of the message |itself. The final filtering decision is presumably based upon |information from all of the mechanisms. | |For example, the lack of strong traceability of a particular message |would normally cause the whitelist information to be treated as less |reliable, but the lack of a strong whitelisting would probably be |offset if it carried a (monetary or computational) payment token. |Also, if the credentials carried by the message were found to |have been |generated by a discredited authority, this would probably reflect |negatively on the message as a whole, whatever it carried. | |>> - BCPs for effective recipient filtering based on above facilities |>> - BCPs for senders (of various categories) for efficient |use of above |>> facilities |> |> BCPs are basically the policy documents to make sure that the |> framework is used properly - kind of like manuals. | |Still an essential part of the system. | |>> With any luck, that should make things a heap clearer for everyone |>> (myself included), unless of course Yakov is going to point out how |>> incorrect I am. :-) |> |> Jonathan - your explanation has been extremely heplful. As a |matter of |> fact, it seems that I will need additional help rewriting the |> framework document, specifically on how to rewrite it so "normal" |> humans can understand it :) If you wish to help with the writing and |> the editing, please contact me. | |Yes, I think I could do that. | |But in particular, I hope that more list members now realise that the |Consent Framework is in fact an important and useful document. There |are a lot of proposals coming in which try to cover multiple |aspects of |the system at once (usually doing one well and others poorly), and I |suspect this is due to ignorance of the framework and it's intentions. | |It would be overall better if proposal authors were more aware of the |Consent Framework, and were thus able to design their mechanisms as |single-purpose plugins to it, instead of jack-of-all-trades |megaproposals. | |-------------------------------------------------------------- |from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton |mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk |website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ |tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to |teach you it. | | | _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 10:42:27 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 KAA10311 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5R89-0000fM-TW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:42:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93Eg5G7002554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:42:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5R89-0000f7-On for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:42:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10302 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5R87-0001eE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5R87-0001eB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:42:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5R86-0000d0-4i; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5R80-0000ca-3L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:41:56 -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 KAA10299 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5R7x-0001e8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:41:53 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5R7w-0001e3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:41:53 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id AAF110960134; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:42:57 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:50:45 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] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing Thread-Index: AcOJRLM8AUVn5t+jSTmnNU99+4T3ngAd81sw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Markus Stumpf" , "ASRG list" 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, 3 Oct 2003 04:44:12 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov, >=20 > You can ask yourself: if this document is published as RFC=20 > xxxx, can you imagine a future technical discussion in the=20 > IETF or outside directing readers to RFC xxxx? " >=20 I would imagine that the discussions would lead readers to a collection of existing sites that employ disposable addresses first, primarily because this document is just way too light. Not to say it should have more beef, because there's not a whole lotta beef one can add to this topic in the first place. So, IMO, this document doesn't pass the "potentially useful" test because it doesn't significantly rise above the existing noise level. > >=20 > > I'm sorry but I'm too ignorant of the RFC process to=20 > understand "how=20 > > worthwhile" a document needs to be in order to be published. > >=20 >=20 > From the RFC Editor: > " > Our criteria for individual submissions are very general: a=20 > document should be technically competent and potentially=20 > useful. We particularly seek your advice on technical=20 > competence -- we don't like to publish something is is=20 > embarrassingly wrong, although controversial can be OK. Your=20 > comments on utility will also be useful. >=20 > You can ask yourself: if this document is published as RFC=20 > xxxx, can you imagine a future technical discussion in the=20 > IETF or outside directing readers to RFC xxxx? " >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 10:51:07 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 KAA10707 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RGX-00015d-Jm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:50:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93EojCC004183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:50:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RGX-00015O-Ah for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:50:45 -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 KAA10679 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RGU-0001kY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:50:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RGU-0001kU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:50:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RFq-0000xm-3q; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RFS-0000x8-8o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:49:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10609 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RFP-0001jZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:49:35 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RFP-0001iz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:49:35 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id ACBFA850102; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:50:39 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:58:26 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <6d7f642f-7454-4aa9-8253-712e9853e2a5> 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOJHdlF32eXROmgQVepaaqFrUPGKgAnzZBA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Kee Hinckley" , , "Brad Knowles" 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, 3 Oct 2003 04:51:53 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, until (if) the self-nomination kicks in an a CR BCP is submitted, can the existing CRI statement be changed: FROM: "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com, for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's email address as the sender of the challenge message." TO: "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended that each CRI system use the original sender's email address for issuing challenges to reduce unecessary overhead." > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:39 AM > To: Peter Kay; 'Yakov Shafranovich' > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance >=20 >=20 > You have an excellent point...was that a self-nomination? 8-) >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Peter > > Kay > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:54 PM > > To: Eric Dean; Yakov Shafranovich > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > >=20 > > This may just be an issue of semantics. Perhaps what I'm=20 > suggesting is=20 > > more of a BCP than an adjustment to CRI. So maybe the right approach > is > > to solidfy the BCP for CR and then make sure your CRI=20 > examples respect=20 > > the BCP. > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:43 AM > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay > > > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles' > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience from=20 > > > someone who understands CR systems. > > > > > > Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles=20 > automation=20 > > > and loop avoidance. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Yakov > > > > Shafranovich > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM > > > > To: Peter Kay > > > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles > > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop=20 > Avoidance > > > > > > > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as > > > a basis for > > > > our BCP: > > > > > > > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > > > > > > Peter Kay wrote: > > > > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well. > > > > > > > > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond > > > with the same > > > > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to? > > > > > > > > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to > > > "support@domain.com", did > > > your > > > > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of > > > "support@domain.com" or was it > > > > > "techsupportreply@domain.com". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > > > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM > > > > >>To: Eric Dean > > > > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > > > > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop > Avoidance > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I > > > > >> > > > > >>don't think > > > > >> > > > > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to > > > > >> > > > > >>carry various > > > > >> > > > > >>>protocol information. > > > > >> > > > > >>Perhaps. Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate > > > with more > > > > >>than just other CR systems. > > > > >> > > > > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support > > > system. > > > > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by > > > doing a MAIL > > > > >>FROM/RCPT TO. Then we generated an auto-reply. His=20 > CR system=20 > > > > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce=20 > report from our=20 > > > > >>server. Then the CR system sent us two challenges. One > > > went to the > > > > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject,=20 > so it didn't > > > have > > > > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we=20 > > > > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge > > > that as well). > > > > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail=20 > server, which=20 > > > > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather=20 > than when it > > > gets > > > > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that > > > stunt). That > > > > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so > no > > > > >>damage there, just annoyance. > > > > >> > > > > >>So here's the count of messages sent. > > > > >> > > > > >>User - 1 > > > > >>Support System - 2 > > > > >>CR System - 2 > > > > >> > > > > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear > > > out. And the > > > > >>user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their > > > support > > > > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human. At > > > which point > > > > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the > > > challenge. > > > > >> > > > > >>-- > > > > >>Kee Hinckley > > > > >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation=20 > Spam Defense > > > > >>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=20 > they are so=20 > > > > >>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 > > > > > > > > > > >=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 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 11:31:12 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 LAA12326 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RtJ-00039q-OC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:30:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93FUn34012135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RtJ-00039e-He for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:30:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12284 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RtI-0002CJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:30:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5RtI-0002CG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:30:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RsX-00031q-69; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5Rrr-0002xO-3a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:29:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12171 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rrq-00029v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:29:18 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rrp-00029p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:29:17 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 1940D1813B; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:18:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , , "'Brad Knowles'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <001601c389c3$07e322e0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:28:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would recommend that we either strike the statement or leave as is. The problem I have with the original sender's email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email 821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers. That sucks. For CR, your statement makes sense...for CRI...it does not. > "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended > that each CRI system use the original sender's email address for issuing > challenges to reduce unecessary overhead." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 11:34:05 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 LAA12429 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Rw7-0003LU-LL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:33:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93FXhQw012854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Rw7-0003LF-G5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:33:43 -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 LAA12411 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rw6-0002Em-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:33:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rw6-0002Ej-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:33:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5RvR-0003De-RQ; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Rv5-0003DG-EG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:32:39 -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 LAA12373 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rv4-0002Do-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:32:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Rv4-0002DU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:32:38 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.196.202]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM600I5GTTFLG@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:32:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7D966E.9000108@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - ICANN asks Verisign to shut down SiteFinder in 48 hours Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:31:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT ICANN has posted the following announcement to their website, asking Verisign to stop the SiteFinder service within 48 hours: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03oct03.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 11:45:05 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 LAA12928 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5S6l-00046p-U9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:44:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93FihAC015789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:44:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5S6l-00046a-Jf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:44:43 -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 LAA12901 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5S6k-0002M5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:44:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5S6k-0002M2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:44:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5S64-0003zC-Q8; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5S5K-0003yj-3Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12801 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5S5I-0002L3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:43:13 -0400 Received: from mahler.bearnet.com ([66.111.109.24] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5S5I-0002L0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:43:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 1867 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 15:43:12 -0000 Received: from adsl-66-143-72-74.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net (HELO mars.bearnet.com) (billw@66.143.72.74) by mahler.bearnet.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 15:43:12 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031003104205.02859fc0@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 To: Brad Knowles From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002201944.020035a8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002201944.020035a8@mail.bearnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:43:08 -0500 At 05:26 AM 10/3/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: >> Also, SMTP requires backward compatibility with non-extended versions >> of the protocol (RFC 2821, section 4.1.1.1). That's why AMTP couldn't >> work as an SMTP extension. > Which will seriously cut down the acceptance rate. I personally belive the opposite is true. Time will tell. --Bill --- Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 12:05:25 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 MAA13656 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SQQ-0005E1-Fh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:05:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93G521T020085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 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 1A5SQQ-0005Ds-8E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:05:02 -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 MAA13645 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SQO-0002e3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SQO-0002e0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:05:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SPR-00055t-Me; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5SOT-00052M-RO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:03:02 -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 MAA13591 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SOS-0002cL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:03:00 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SOR-0002c6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:02:59 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id ADEF7F00120; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:03:59 -1000 Received: from rrcs-west-66-91-134-123.biz.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:11:46 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] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Thread-Index: AcOJw4m9iKMy53V6RlOBssABUBFmsQAAj3Gw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Kee Hinckley" , , "Brad Knowles" 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, 3 Oct 2003 06:05:14 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Clearly I'm confused and beg forgivness due to ignorance related to the following questions: Isn't CRI about getting various CR systems to interoperate? =20 If something make sense for CR, how can it not make sense for CRI? > The problem I have with the original sender's=20 > email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email=20 > 821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers.=20 This statement confuses me even further. If CRI systems don't use the original sender's email address, they DEFINITELY have to inspect every email for CRI headers because they don't know if a given email is a challenge or not.=20 I submit to you that keeping the original sender's email address SIGNIFICANTLY reduces overhead, because: 1. Challenge transmissions are ALWAYS a reactive step, (CRI draft, 2b) 2. This implies that the sender has already sent an email (CRI draft, 2a) 3. And if we ASSUME that the original sender has automatically whitelisted the recipient email address (a safe assumption) 4. Then a CRI system only needs to inspect email whose MAIL-FROM is present on the whitelist, otherwise the CRI needs to inspect everything. Please help me out of this black hole of cluelessness. >=20 > I would recommend that we either strike the statement or=20 > leave as is. The problem I have with the original sender's=20 > email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email=20 > 821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers. That sucks. >=20 > For CR, your statement makes sense...for CRI...it does not. > =20 > > "For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also=20 > recommended=20 > > that each CRI system use the original sender's email address for > issuing > > challenges to reduce unecessary overhead." >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 12:10:05 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 MAA13930 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SUy-0005w5-0R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:09:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93G9hjn022811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:09:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SUx-0005vq-Mh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:09:43 -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 MAA13892 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SUw-0002iz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5SUw-0002iw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:09:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SUH-0005eQ-H6; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5STd-0005d7-Lp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:08:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13815 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5STc-0002hI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:08:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5STb-0002gl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:08:20 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.196.202]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM600IGUVGVLT@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:07:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F7D9ECD.6060701@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 7. BCP - 'Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail' to Proposed Standard Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:07:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-10-31. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 12:22:10 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 MAA14552 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Sgf-0006ga-Lp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93GLnvf025694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:21:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Sgf-0006gL-Dy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:49 -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 MAA14493 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Sge-0002wh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Sgd-0002we-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Sft-0006YT-VF; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SfH-0006Xy-Fb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:20:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14428 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SfF-0002uq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:20:22 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SfF-0002un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:20:21 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id DBBC018C5E; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:08:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , , "'Brad Knowles'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <004501c389c9$fd05e680$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:18:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Isn't CRI about getting various CR systems to interoperate? CR requires human intervention...CRI is automated. > If something make sense for CR, how can it not make sense for CRI? > > > The problem I have with the original sender's > > email address is that I now have to inspect EVERY email > > 821,822,and MIME to look for CRI headers. > > This statement confuses me even further. If CRI systems don't use the > original sender's email address, they DEFINITELY have to inspect every > email for CRI headers because they don't know if a given email is a > challenge or not. Hmm...either way you have to inspect all headers. I was thinking of inspecting responses...but I still need to fully inspect 821,822,MIME for challenges as well...unless there was a preemptive message by a CRI challenging server requesting from the destination MX if they support CRI...then the CRI message could go to a local system user rather than the end-user...but that seems too complicated at this point. However, I am thinking of a potential conflict whereby I may use CRI client software via a CRI server...I need to think about this a bit more...but if the CRI server uses my email address...then it may break my client CRI software. > I submit to you that keeping the original sender's email address > SIGNIFICANTLY reduces overhead, because: > 1. Challenge transmissions are ALWAYS a reactive step, (CRI draft, 2b) > 2. This implies that the sender has already sent an email (CRI draft, > 2a) > 3. And if we ASSUME that the original sender has automatically > whitelisted the recipient email address (a safe assumption) This makes sense when a computer is not automatically responding...when a human is involved...whitelists matter...when it's a computer maintaining state on the human's behalf...whitelists don't come into play > 4. Then a CRI system only needs to inspect email whose MAIL-FROM is > present on the whitelist, otherwise the CRI needs to inspect everything. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 12:30:10 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 MAA15234 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SoQ-000775-3u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:29:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93GToBS027337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:29:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5SoP-00076q-Vn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:29:50 -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 MAA15221 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SoO-0003Ea-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:29:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SoO-0003EX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:29:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Snd-0006z8-Kl; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Sna-0006yo-N3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:28:58 -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 MAA15175 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SnZ-0003D3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:28:57 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5SnY-0003BO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:28:56 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.196.202]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM600EUAWC3Z3@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:26:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20031003023336.02768d58@mail.bearnet.com> To: Bill Weinman Cc: Brad Knowles , ASRG Message-id: <3F7DA32E.6030706@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002192306.02028ec8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031003023336.02768d58@mail.bearnet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:26:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bill Weinman wrote: > At 08:27 PM 10/2/2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > >> Over 50% of the ccTLD nameservers are open public >> caching/recursive nameservers and vulnerable to cache >> pollution/poisoning. >> [[snip]] > > > I recognize that there is a problem with DNS that has potential for > abuse, but I seriously question whether the mail transfer protocol is > the appropriate place to deal with it. > > Is this problem, by itself, justification for the additional overhead of > X.509 authentication for the *receiving* MTA as a requirement in the > mail transfer protocol? I tend to think it's a problem that should be > dealt with in DNS. > Please take a look at the archive, we had an extensive discussion a while back in regards to DNS security and DNS-SEC. Also I would like to point out that certain technical nitty gritties of proposals might be better debated off-list as per RFC 2014: " The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on this list are relevant and that not devolve to "flame" attacks or rat- hole into technical trivia. " Some of the discussion around AMTP has been getting pretty close to "technical trivia". In particular, AMTP has two mailing lists setup for discussion and I would encourage folks to use them. However, I am sure that Bill will keep us updated on regular intervals on AMTP and will come back seeking more comments. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 15:42:57 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 PAA23440 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Vov-000880-BT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:42:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93JgXUN031238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:42:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Vou-00087l-UI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:42:32 -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 PAA23430 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Vot-0005SY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:42:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Vot-0005SV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:42:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5VoP-00083V-V0; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5Vo8-000817-EZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:41:44 -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 PAA23412 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Vo6-0005SF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:41:42 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Vo6-0005Rv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:41:42 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h93Jkdf19567; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:46:39 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.22) Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <28243815898.20031003124100@brandenburg.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing In-Reply-To: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@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, 3 Oct 2003 12:41:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, YS> The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: YS> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt The author should provide an evaluation of the proposal, such as by using the questions/criteria listed in the -techconsider- document. The results are certain to be interesting. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 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 QAA24862 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 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 1A5WJY-00014q-Bp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:14:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93KECU6004140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:14:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5WJX-00014h-Uw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:14:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24846 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5WJW-0005nK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:14:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5WJV-0005nE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:14:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5WJN-00012N-BM; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5WJ2-000123-Qn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:13:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24817 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5WJ1-0005mg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:13:39 -0400 Received: from cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com ([69.132.32.64] helo=CMK4) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5WJ0-0005mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:13:38 -0400 Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id A98559A301A2; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:18:13 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:18:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <1193.192.168.0.7.1065212293.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:18:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I find item #1 humorous, "unscrupulous companies". Ever shopped with Amazon.com? They sell addresses, but yet have a high amount of consumer trust. In response to item 3, the idea of the disposable address is for the server to dispose of the mail and not respond. The server would forward the mail to a dead-end account. Curtis > At 2:02 PM -0400 10/2/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system >> that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The >> instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that >> will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. > > I'll confess, I haven't read it. But from the description I have > several comments. > > 1. I've been using per-domain addresses for several years (e.g. > username+webdomain@somewhere.com). I've gotten very confused at > times in registration systems when a company changes it's name, but I > have never received spam to any of them. Guess I don't give my > address to unscrupulous companies. > That said, I full expect to get spam eventually. It happened to one of > my older addresses. One of the companies I gave it to went out of > business and sold their address list. Which leads me to #2. > > 2. So I know who sold my address. What does that gain me? It > certainly doesn't stop the spam. It doesn't even tell you who has the > address now. > > 3. Spreading lots of different email addresses around is a bad idea. > The fact that you know you can reject them really doesn't help. As we > speak, my mail server is eating up 8-16KBs of bandwidth right now doing > nothing but rejecting email sent to non-existent addresses. Yesterday > some idiot on Level3's network tried to connect to our mail server > 500,000 times. You do *not* want that happening to your mail server. > Increasing the number of throwaway addresses simply > increases the bandwidth costs of spam. > > 4. I gather from other comments that the technique uses wildcard > addresses. I tried that just the other day. I figured I'd set up a > wildcard address for somewhere.com that pointed to Versign's > "service". I thought maybe they'd enjoy all the traffic from people > attempting to ftp to ftp.somewhere.com, or spam smtp.somewhere.com, and > so on. Three pieces of software in my network broke in the next two > days and I gave up and got rid of it. > > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to > accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager > to regulate everyone else's. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 17:12:32 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 RAA29459 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:12:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XDf-0005Bi-J6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:12:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93LCBlD019936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:12:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XDf-0005BT-Do for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:12:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29445 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XDd-0007AC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:12:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XDc-0007A9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:12:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XDV-00059J-IL; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XDD-00058r-RN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:11:43 -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 RAA29412 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XDB-00079T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:11:41 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XDB-00078q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:11:41 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.196.202]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM700IMT9FIRK@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:09:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7DE57B.20103@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Verisign to suspend SiteFinder wildcards service Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:09:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT According to the following press release, VeriSign is suspending SiteFinder: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031003/sff057_1.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 17:27:31 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 RAA29912 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XSA-0005wG-Ip for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:27:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93LRAYl022822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:27:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XSA-0005w1-BD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:27:10 -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 RAA29891 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XS7-0007Jq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:27:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XS7-0007Jn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:27:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XS2-0005sV-2g; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:27:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XR7-0005s2-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:26:05 -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 RAA29878 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XR5-0007JS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:26:03 -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 1A5XR4-0007JP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:26:02 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.wampumpeag.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h93LSGkK021463; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:28:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200310032128.h93LSGkK021463@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: ASRG list , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Verisign to suspend SiteFinder wildcards service In-Reply-To: Message from Yakov Shafranovich of "Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:09:15 EDT." <3F7DE57B.20103@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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, 03 Oct 2003 17:28:16 -0400 Temporarily Suspend. "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down the Site Finder service. We will accede to the request while we explore all of our options," said Russell Lewis, executive vice president of VeriSign's Naming and Directory Services Group. "During the more than two weeks that Site Finder has been operational, there is no data to indicate that the core operation of the Domain Name System or stability of the Internet has been adversely affected. ICANN is using anecdotal and isolated issues to attempt to regulate non-registry services, but in the interests of further working with the technical community we will temporarily suspend Site Finder." See the ICANN correspondence page for the ICANN - Verisign correspondence of the past two-plus weeks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 17:35:28 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 RAA00284 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XZq-0006Hn-UV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:35:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h93LZ6hD024157 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:35:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XZq-0006HY-JX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:35:06 -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 RAA00251 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XZo-0007Q2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:35:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XZn-0007Pz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:35:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XZm-0006FT-7L; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5XZX-0006F8-Gv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:34:47 -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 RAA00208 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XZV-0007PQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:34:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5XZU-0007Ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:34:44 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.196.202]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM700IWRAIBRK@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:32:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG , "Curtis M. Kularski" Message-id: <3F7DEAF0.2070709@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:32:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jon Kyme wrote: >>The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: >> >> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt >> > > > Have comments been sought from the many providers > of disposable address systems? > The ones in the group aren't speaking up and others have not been contacted. Is the author planning on doing that? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 20:01:43 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 UAA04842 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5ZrL-0003Ey-PV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:01:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9401JEB012450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:01:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5ZrL-0003Ej-EI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:01:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04820 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5ZrJ-0000wi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:01:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5ZrJ-0000wf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:01:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Zr4-0003Ac-MA; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5Zq5-00038w-KA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:00:02 -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 TAA04761 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Zq3-0000vs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:59:59 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5Zq2-0000vn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:59:58 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.7]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h93NxlLU014614; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:59:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance From: david nicol To: Eric Dean Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , anti-spam research group , "'Brad Knowles'" In-Reply-To: <004501c389c9$fd05e680$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> References: <004501c389c9$fd05e680$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065225587.1006.32.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: 03 Oct 2003 18:59:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit not if CR headers are only in initial headers instead of within MIME blocks. > Hmm...either way you have to inspect all headers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 20:19:30 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 UAA05137 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5a8a-00042U-6D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:19:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h940J8eY015520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:19:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5a8Z-00042F-8b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:19:08 -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 UAA05126 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5a8X-00013M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:19:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5a8W-00013J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:19:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5a8T-000407-Ne; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5a7U-0003yg-Ns for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05117 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5a7S-000130-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:17:58 -0400 Received: from cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com ([69.132.32.64] helo=CMK4) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5a7S-00012x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:17:58 -0400 Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id A2CB5CB501A2; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:22:35 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:22:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <1807.192.168.0.7.1065226955.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <3F7DEAF0.2070709@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7DEAF0.2070709@solidmatrix.com> Cc: , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:22:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, I will handle that after I complete my response for the "techconsider" questions. I would like their feedback on the draft, especially since it builds on the base idea that they use. Curtis > Jon Kyme wrote: > >>>The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: >>> >>> >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt >>> >> >> >> Have comments been sought from the many providers >> of disposable address systems? >> > > The ones in the group aren't speaking up and others have not been > contacted. Is the author planning on doing that? > > 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 Oct 3 20:36:34 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 UAA05507 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5aP6-0004ZU-0Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:36:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h940aBi3017566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:36:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5aP5-0004ZF-FW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:36:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05501 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5aP3-0001BA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:36:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5aP2-0001B7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:36:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5aOw-0004X1-CI; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:36:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5aO0-0004Wf-Qj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:35:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05453 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5aNy-0001Aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:35:02 -0400 Received: from cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com ([69.132.32.64] helo=CMK4) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5aNx-0001An-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:35:02 -0400 Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id A6CE5CE801A2; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:39:42 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:39:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <1831.192.168.0.7.1065227982.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <28243815898.20031003124100@brandenburg.com> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <28243815898.20031003124100@brandenburg.com> Cc: , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_20031003203942_86283" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:39:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) ------=_20031003203942_86283 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mr. Crocker, Thank you for suggesting that I do that (although, in the future, please direct requests for me to me). From answering the questions I have found a few things I need to explain better in the draft, and I thought of some ideas for corporate users that may be more helpful than what I currently have specified. The response document is attached. Curtis > Yakov, > > YS> The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: > YS> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt > > > The author should provide an evaluation of the proposal, such as by > using the questions/criteria listed in the -techconsider- document. > > The results are certain to be interesting. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------=_20031003203942_86283 Content-Type: text/plain; name="techconsider.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="techconsider.txt" Response to Dave Crocker's request to respond to the Tech-Consider questions. 1. Adoption Effort - The proposed mechanism can be added to existing implementations of SMTP servers without any major adjustments. The only additional mechanism required is the ability for a user to add and remove accounts for his/her account. 2. Threshold of Benefit - users who adopt the mechanism will have immediate benefits. Success for a user is determined only by the user's adoption of the procedure. No outside inflence is required. 3. Impact - Senders will only notice a different email address, nothing will be technically different for them. Recipients will see nothing different in the receive proccess, but when distributing addresses they will have to be concious of what address they assign. The styles of operation aren't significantly changed. 4. Impact (external) - No effects to external parties will occur. Legitimate email users will not be blocked by this procedure. Spammers can pass through for the first time, but as soon as the user identifies the "TO" address as an address that is being attacked by SPAM the address can be flagged and all mail to it can be disposed of. There is no change of nature of email for people who don't adopt. 5. Ongoing effort - maintainance is minimal. the users will add or discontinue addresses as needed. The procedure does not effect affect regular email. 6. Balance of Burden - The burden is mostly on the user, but the burden is minimal, the only work required is maintaining the list, and that function could easily be intergrated into an email client to allow for easy list manipulation. 7. Use by Full Internet - If everyone adopts it, then everything should still function normally (except a lot less SPAM). The fabric of Internet mail should see no ill effects, even if this is used on a large scale. 8. Growth - Increasing by 1000 times should not be a problem, as long as the mail servers are upgraded as they would be if this procedure wasn't in place. The fabric of Internet mail is still safe. 9. Efficiency - The proccess uses existing techniques (although used for different purposes) efficiently, and this procedure can use them efficiently also. The proccess will be able to operate at about the same speed as current, but some mild delays (not more than a few seconds) could be incurred while mail is being sorted. Proccessing is a little higher while mail is sorted and the alias is followed, but existing mails systems do it all the time without any consequences, storage requirements will be less because the mail is being sorted and most SPAM is hitting a dead-end box that is deleting mail instantly. 10. Cost - No major expense will be incurred. 11. Reliability - Non-SPAM mail should all arrive in its proper location, the user has control over what gets in and what doesn't. Non-SPAM is more likely to arrive at its destination and not be lost, due to both the end user control and the absense of distracting SPAM. 12. Internet Impact - Only the parts that adopt it. 13. SPAM Impact - SPAM sent to addresses determined by methods other than guessing, and dictionary attacks should be very well suppressed. Once an attacked address is identified it can be eliminated, there is still the issue of the intial mail, which prevents this procedure from being 100% SPAM-free. 14. Circumvention - the only way to circumvent the procedure is to find another address after the first time mail is sent (because of the user's ability to kill addresses). If a catch-all is used by the user it may be circumvented with a simple random addressing (this is why this was removed from the draft, and discouraged in future drafts). No effect to non-SPAM mail will occur unless non-SPAM mailers sell their address lists to SPAMers. 15. Personal Post/Reply - using the personal email option, which uses a whitelist, will require the sender to respond to a whitelist addition request. If the personal option is ommited, then the sender will initiate an email with the recipient as usual (using the address provided), but most likely using a unique FROM address. Once a "trust" is establised the two can use a simple-non unique address if one is availible. 16. Mailing Lists - mailing lists will be assigned their own address like anything else used by the user. All replies, etc should still work. As a personal reccomendation, each list should be given its own full address on the server, and not just an alias for easy management, but that should be left to the user's discretion. 17. InterEnterprise - an address shall be issued for each user with the name of the team in it, such as user.team1@example.net (or team1@user.example.net). As team affiliation changes the address can be modified. Intrateam communication should not be affected. For internal enterprise communication an address similar to the personal (trusted source) address should be used. ------=_20031003203942_86283-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 3 21:01:36 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 VAA05925 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5anK-0005J8-JY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:01:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9411EL5020399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:01:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5anK-0005Iw-BN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:01:14 -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 VAA05920 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5anH-0001KL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:01:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5anH-0001KI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:01:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5an8-0005FB-L6; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5amD-0005Cw-1X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:00:05 -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 UAA05888 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5amA-0001K3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:00:02 -0400 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5amA-0001Js-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:00:02 -0400 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-105-186-152.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.186.152]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id B8FAD18073; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:49:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'david nicol'" Cc: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'anti-spam research group'" , "'Brad Knowles'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance Message-ID: <001801c38a12$d93501c0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> 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: <1065225587.1006.32.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:00:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You mean within 821 headers? Go ahead and send me CRI headers there...see what my SMTP server does...also using 821 prevents the use of multi-tiered SMTP architectures unless they all are CRI compliant...won't happen. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of david > nicol > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:00 PM > To: Eric Dean > Cc: 'Peter Kay'; 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Kee Hinckley'; anti-spam research > group; 'Brad Knowles' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance > > > > not if CR headers are only in initial headers instead of within MIME > blocks. > > > > Hmm...either way you have to inspect all headers > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 3 21:20:38 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 VAA06403 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 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 1A5b5j-0006Db-UE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:20:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h941KFeS023897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:20:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5b5h-0006DM-Vb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:20:14 -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 VAA06390 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5b5f-0001Vg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:20:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5b5e-0001Vd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:20:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5b5W-00069p-Eu; Fri, 03 Oct 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 1A5b4s-00067s-Bn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:19:22 -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 VAA06386 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5b4p-0001VX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:19:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5b4p-0001VU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:19:19 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2909995; Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:19:16 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1193.192.168.0.7.1065212293.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <1193.192.168.0.7.1065212293.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> To: "Curtis M. Kularski" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing 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: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:16:13 -0400 At 4:18 PM -0400 10/3/03, Curtis M. Kularski wrote: >I find item #1 humorous, "unscrupulous companies". Ever shopped with >Amazon.com? They sell addresses, but yet have a high amount of consumer >trust. As I mentioned, I use tagged email addresses. I've shopped with Amazon.com since they opened the store. I've never had them sell my address. They *did* expose it to the public once, when I commented on an auction vendor, not realizing they would use my amazon.com address, but that was easy enough to fix once I realized it. What evidence do you have that they sell addresses? >In response to item 3, the idea of the disposable address is for the >server to dispose of the mail and not respond. The server would forward >the mail to a dead-end account. > Those two statements contradict each other. Either you reject the mail, or you forward it. If you forward it, then you get a *huge* bandwidth hit. I assumed that you would reject it, and my example addresses that assumption: > > 3. Spreading lots of different email addresses around is a bad idea. >> The fact that you know you can reject them really doesn't help. As we >> speak, my mail server is eating up 8-16KBs of bandwidth right now doing >> nothing but rejecting email sent to non-existent addresses. Yesterday >> some idiot on Level3's network tried to connect to our mail server >> 500,000 times. You do *not* want that happening to your mail server. >> Increasing the number of throwaway addresses simply > > increases the bandwidth costs of spam. None of those addresses are being accepted. That bandwidth and traffic comes from bouncing spam and viruses sent to 40,000 non-existent addresses. We bounce one every two seconds in normal times, 10-15 a second during peak virus season. To put that in terms of throw-away addresses, I'd guess that an average user might have 20 throwaways in a year, so call that the traffic for 2000 users (the first year--of course it doubles every year after that). Throwaway addresses are based on the assumption that sending mail to a non-existent address is "free". It isn't. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 4 21:28:54 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 VAA20601 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5xhH-0003Li-Vb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:28:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h951SVuO012868 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:28:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5xhH-0003LT-If for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:28:31 -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 VAA20590 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5xhE-00050b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:28:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5xhE-00050X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:28:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5xgn-0003J7-G3; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A5xgb-0003IZ-CH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:27:49 -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 VAA20565 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5xgY-0004zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:27:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A5xgY-0004zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:27:46 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.136.24]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HM900JUXG16RZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 01:27:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F7F7363.4070701@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Verisign has suspended SiteFinder (fwd) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Oct 2003 21:26:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Below is the relevant list message from the NANOG mailing list: > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:50:02 -0400 > From: Matt Larson [address] > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Removal of wildcard A records from .com and .net zones > > VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by 0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday, October. > > Matt > -- > Matt Larson [address] > VeriSign Naming and Directory Services _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 5 12:28:44 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 MAA19236 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Bk6-0006qN-Oq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:28:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h95GSMft026308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:28:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Bk6-0006qF-Ie for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:28:22 -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 MAA19231 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Bk5-0003AX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:28:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Bk4-0003AU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:28:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Bjl-0006oK-5x; Sun, 05 Oct 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 1A6Biu-0006nE-Ho for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:27:08 -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 MAA19206 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Bis-00039T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:27:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Bis-00039P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:27:06 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.229.108]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMA009H2LO750@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:26:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F804637.1000207@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Welcome to the ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:26:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Welcome to the mailing list of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This message is sent out to the mailing list at regular intervals in order to remind group members and inform newcomers about various aspects of the ASRG. In addition to this message, additional messages will be sent on a regular basis providing updates on work items and summarizing mailing list discussions. 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS. o There are still many open items on the research agenda not been taken care of. WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to take care of things, if you would like to help please post to the list or contact the chair off-list. o All suggestions on how to improve the group are welcome, please email us! 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ASRG. The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam. The purpose of the ASRG is to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively PROPOSE and EVALUATE solutions to the problem.The ASRG is part of the IRTF. The IRTF focuses on longer term research issues related to the Internet while the parallel organization, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), focuses on the shorter term issues of engineering and standards making. The operations of the IRTF and its research groups are discussed in detail in RFC 2014 (BCP 8). 2. INTERIM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_ipr_policy.htm). "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties." 3. MAILING LIST INFORMATION AND POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm). If you want to change your mailing list options, please visit the mailing list page at (https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). If the volume of messages is too high for you, you can choose to receive a daily digest of list messages instead of individual posts. All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work items outlined in the ASRG Research Agenda document. 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. NOTE: The moderator or chair may at their discretion moderate posting privileges of participants who ignore these guidelines. If they do so they will announce the fact to the list, with an explanation. 4. ASRG RESEARCH AGENDA (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm). The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. The Research Agenda lists different areas of research that the ASRG is pursuing. 5. ASRG WORK ITEM STATUS (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm). This lists the current work items showing owner and status. Each item also shows the associated item number from the research agenda. 6. MAIN ASRG PLAYERS. Paul Judge - ASRG Co-Chair Yakov Shafranovich - ASRG Co-Chair 7. IMPORTANT LINKS. ASRG charter - http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Official ASRG website - http://www.irtf.org/asrg Mailing list options - https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Mailing list archive - https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html Search engine for the archive - http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg IRTF website - http://www.irtf.org IETF website - http://www.ietf.org IAB website - http://www.iab.org RFC 2014 (BCP 8) - ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2014.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 5 18:42:38 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 SAA28347 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HZv-0000Sq-Ha for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:42:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h95MgFox001781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:42:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HZv-0000Se-BS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:42:15 -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 SAA28329 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HZs-0005py-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:42:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HZr-0005pv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:42:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HZh-0000O7-Vb; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HYp-0000Nh-PJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:41:08 -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 SAA28301 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HYm-0005pb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:41:04 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.129]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HYm-0005pX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:41:04 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.7]) by ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h95MewqE008557; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:40:58 -0500 (CDT) From: david nicol To: Alan DeKok , anti-spam research group Cc: Yakov Shafranovich In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065393656.1151.43.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 Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX - dln-dns-oct-05-2003 RFC: "extended listing" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 05 Oct 2003 17:40:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 19:37, Alan DeKok wrote: > [...] additional > information (cost, rates, etc) publicised through DNS. > > Alan DeKok. Faced with the task of synthesyzing disparate proposals into a coherent whole, one looks for similarities. I believe that the general technical problem is as follows: Mapping of a name associated with a domain to a list of numeric IP addresses, in a way that a client software function could take arguments (domain, IP address, name) and return a yes-or-no answer on the issue of is the IP listed for that name with that domain. We also want to avoid adding levels to DNS infrastructure, which makes any proposal which starts by defining a new DNS record type a non-starter. All the various proposals have a mechanism for this feature, and by deferring the details of what the names are and what they mean and to what purposes they are defined, we can achieve synthesis. Listing in A records is flawed because: 1: without a convention for making the names "special" some how there is a risk of collision with names already defined 2: an A record can only store seven IP addresses reliably Issue 1 can be solved by defining a wrapper, such as dashes before and after the name. "ext" is the name for the purposes of this document, so the subdomain to query concerning the list of IP addresses on the "ext" list for example.com would be -ext-.example.com Issue 2 can be solved by defining an extended semantics when there are more than seven IP addresses on the list. The PTR record syntax of the in-arpa domain can be used here. It is proposed that when seven or fewer addresses are in a list, that the addresses are listed in an A record for -ext-.example.com, and extended listing is allowed but not required. When there are eight or more records, at least seven MUST be listed in the A record for -ext-.example.com, and A records are defined for all listed IP addresses [1.2.3.4] of the form 4.3.2.1.-ext-.example.com This is called "extended listing." Extended listing MAY be provided for shorter lists too. The reply to an extended listing MAY be the address about which the query was made, but particular extensions may provide alternate semantics. the null address [0.0.0.0] is defined as a negative listing, so that a listing domain MAY provide a negative listing for all IP addresses NOT in the list. -- david nicol _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 5 18:55:27 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 SAA28611 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HmM-0000k8-Qp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:55:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h95Mt6df002850 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:55:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HmM-0000jt-LS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:55:06 -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 SAA28603 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HmJ-0005wX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:55:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HmJ-0005wT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:55:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6HmI-0000gM-RH; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Hld-0000fr-2k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:54:23 -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 SAA28579 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HlZ-0005vp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:54:17 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6HlZ-0005vm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:54:17 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-7.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.7]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h95MsBLU017339; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:54:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) From: david nicol To: "Eric S. Johansson" Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <3F7B46E8.50707@harvee.org> References: <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> <3F7B46E8.50707@harvee.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065394450.1224.57.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: 05 Oct 2003 17:54:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 16:28, Eric S. Johansson wrote: a series of well-though out criticisms. > None of these issues exist with > proof of work stamp based sender-pays. Yes, but how does the recipient collect? Where do I trade my hashcash in for cash and/or valuable prizes? > some folks might see it as a competitive advantage to have a private currency. > They may perceive it as a "lock in" and if they can just get a monopoly, they > will be set for life. I certainly hope so! :) > What's more likely is that there will be a large number of issuers some of which > will settle with others and some of which won't. You have hit the nail on the head regarding my issues with attached stamps. pay2send insists on prepayment by bulk mailers, and is therefore concerned with easily authenticating identities of bulk-mailers to avoid theft from their prepaid pay-to-spam accounts. -- david nicol _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 6 12:10:36 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 MAA09166 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Xw6-0005bH-5H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:10:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96GAEFu021523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:10:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Xw6-0005b4-0j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:10:14 -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 MAA09146 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Xw4-0007mt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:10:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Xw4-0007mp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:10:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Xuv-0005U7-To; Mon, 06 Oct 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 1A6XuC-0005Sh-2a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:08:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09061 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Xu9-0007lD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:08:13 -0400 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Xu8-0007kE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:08:12 -0400 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h96DMwEv038581 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:22:59 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.101.111.190]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003100613130565:6353 ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:13:05 -0300 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006125928.01472140@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: [ASRG] 2b. Public Trace Data Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 01:13:05 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 01:13:07 PM, Serialize complete at 10/06/2003 01:13:07 PM 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, 06 Oct 2003 13:03:38 -0300 Running some analysis on the available data on www.spamarchive.org showed that about 15% of the data there is actually not spam but the usual mailing lists, joke forwards, virus mail, etc. Although the remaining 85% are somewhat valuable, it is difficult to use automated tools on this data. Are there any efforts (or intentions) to eventually clean this out? cheers Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 6 12:16:24 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 MAA09544 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Y1k-00062X-IQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:16:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96GG4Oe023211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:16:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Y1k-00062F-Dj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:16:04 -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 MAA09532 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Y1j-000093-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:16:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Y1i-000090-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:16:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Y1g-0005yE-7S; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6Y18-0005wG-97 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:15:26 -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 MAA09499 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Y16-00007t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:15:24 -0400 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6Y15-00007T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:15:24 -0400 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h96DUEEv038720 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:30:14 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.101.111.190]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003100613202124:6374 ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:20:21 -0300 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006130356.01484bb8@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: [ASRG] 2. analysis and characterization work - "regional" spam Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 01:20:21 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 01:20:22 PM, Serialize complete at 10/06/2003 01:20:22 PM 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, 06 Oct 2003 13:13:18 -0300 Here in Brazil I find more and more what I like to call "national" or even "regional" spam. This are clearly home-brewn advertisings, almost all of them contain full company information (address, telephone, contact person) and are sent to very mixed lists of recipients. They are trying to sell almost everything from t-shirts to coffee mugs to dental services. The most common mailer is outlook express (probably with some imported CSV files). It does not fit in the mass-spammer profile, yet its still spam. The amount is sometimes amazing and exceeds the usual viagra and HGH spam. I think that kind of spam would probably be eliminated by legislation. Are there similar occurances in other countries? To which extent? Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 6 15:17:04 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 PAA18428 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6aqX-0005Du-4A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96JGfhM020071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:16:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6aqW-0005De-V0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:40 -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 PAA18382 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6aqV-0002RJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6aqP-0002RE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6aps-00059Y-AC; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6apA-00058n-NW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18253 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6ap6-0002R2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:15:12 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6ap5-0002QT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:15:11 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:14:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <42XY1SFM>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:00:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [ASRG] 2b. Public Trace Data 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, 6 Oct 2003 15:00:09 -0400 There were some discussions about creating a reviewer process for cleaning the data further. I do question the 15% value. Mainly because I question the definition of spam that you used. For example, joke forward and virus mail seem to qualify as unwanted email. Also depending on the mailing lists that you are speaking of, they could qualify as unwanted email. I do not believe that the data is 100% spam because of the subjectiveness of the volunteers that are submitting data. I would just like to see more details about how we come to the number of how much isn't spam. Do you have any ideas on how to further sanitize the data? Right now, data is sent to either submit@spamarchive or submitautomated@spamarchive. Submit@ is supposed to be human reviewed messages while submitautomated is stuff forwarded from anti-spam tools. The two approaches that we discussed were a) re-run the messages through anti-spam tools to confirm they are spam and b) set up an interface so that volunteers can review and vote on messages. With a decent number of volunteers, one could get through a fair amount of messages daily. We did an initial poll for volunteers early on and there were some individuals that expressed interest. We need someone to create the interface that allows review. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Saurwein [mailto:saurwein@uniwares.com] > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:04 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [ASRG] 2b. Public Trace Data > > > Running some analysis on the available data on > www.spamarchive.org showed > that about 15% of the data there is actually not spam but the > usual mailing > lists, joke forwards, virus mail, etc. > > Although the remaining 85% are somewhat valuable, it is > difficult to use > automated tools on this data. > > Are there any efforts (or intentions) to eventually clean this out? > > cheers > Andreas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 6 15:40:03 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 PAA19068 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6bCo-0006Jw-Ac for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:39:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96Jdg0M024286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:39:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6bCn-0006JU-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:39:41 -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 PAA18981 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6bCk-0002er-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:39:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6bCG-0002eQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:39:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6bC8-000691-TS; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:39:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6bBA-00064X-IP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:38:00 -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 PAA18819 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6bB8-0002ZC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:37:58 -0400 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6bAl-0002Yz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h96GqREw044165 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:52:27 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.101.111.190]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003100616423357:7291 ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:42:33 -0300 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006162044.00bb0a10@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: RE: [ASRG] 2b. Public Trace Data In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 04:42:33 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/06/2003 04:42:34 PM, Serialize complete at 10/06/2003 04:42:34 PM 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, 06 Oct 2003 16:35:22 -0300 At 6/10/2003 16:00 Monday, you wrote: >There were some discussions about creating a reviewer process for cleaning >the data further. > >I do question the 15% value. Mainly because I question the definition of >spam that you used. For example, joke forward and virus mail seem to qualify >as unwanted email. Also depending on the mailing lists that you are speaking >of, they could qualify as unwanted email. This brings us probably back to "The Question": what is spam, or what is not spam. While i believe that joke forwards may be "unwanted" mail, they are not spam (UCE, UBE). People should be able to cope with that on a person to person level. Mailing lists, as found on the spamarchive, are mostly (I guess) lists to which the people have subscribed, time ago, but do not want anymore. Instead of unsubscribing (which IS painful for some lists, I know) they add those lists, senders, etc, to their blacklists, or manually forward as spam. Virus mail is definitely unwanted, but also does not classify as spam (UCE), maybe as UBE - not sure about that. >The two approaches that we discussed were a) re-run the messages through >anti-spam tools to confirm they are spam and b) set up an interface so that >volunteers can review and vote on messages. With a decent number of >volunteers, one could get through a fair amount of messages daily. We did an >initial poll for volunteers early on and there were some individuals that >expressed interest. We need someone to create the interface that allows >review. I think that b) is not reasonable. It might work for a short time until the volunteers get bored. Which leaves us with a). Cheers Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 6 16:43:41 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 QAA21527 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 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 1A6cCM-0000Cn-W0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:43:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96KhIVf000786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:43:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6cCM-0000CX-4C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:43:18 -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 QAA21509 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6c4D-0003MD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:34:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6bmA-0003DH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:16:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6blw-0007fN-RX; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6blF-0007en-SH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20785 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:15:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6blE-0003D6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:15:16 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6blD-0003D3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:15:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 79238 invoked by uid 1013); 6 Oct 2003 20:15:13 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Andreas Saurwein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ASRG] 2. analysis and characterization work - "regional" spam Message-ID: <20031006201513.GC45716@Space.Net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006130356.01484bb8@mail.uniwares.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006130356.01484bb8@mail.uniwares.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 6 Oct 2003 22:15:13 +0200 On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:13:18PM -0300, Andreas Saurwein wrote: > Are there similar occurances in other countries? To which extent? Whether it is regional/national depends IMHO on the source. We had/have customers that start their own homemade newsletters. Yes they use Outlook. As some of them have small stores (e.g. photo shops, copy shops, music clubs) it is obvious that their customers are from the region they're in. So yes, UCE with a regional character is increasing. I have talked to a few of them personally. The addresses mostly come from business cards (contact database) or their customer database and they hear/see so much about e-marketing (thanks IBM) in TV that they try to do their own. Some of them fail badly, because they are not aware of how much email addresses change and have typos and when they send out to 1500 contacts they receive up to 50% bounces. We try to convince them that double opt-in mailinglists with bounce handling are the better choice for them and most of them are really happy with it. We use the address list they give us to generate double opt-in requests (with an explanation of what is happening) and from my experience about 20-30% really subscribe. \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 Oct 6 17:04:10 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 RAA22504 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6cW9-0001Bd-4t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:03:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96L3jiY004555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:03:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6cW9-0001BO-0B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:03:45 -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 RAA22465 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6cVQ-00014K-8O; Mon, 06 Oct 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 1A6cUe-00010E-Qw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:02:12 -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 RAA22384 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6cUc-0003tj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:02:10 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6cUb-0003ru-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:02:10 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-133-88.client.attbi.com[12.254.133.88]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003100621013701300djk16e>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:01:37 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031006145825.071dad78@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard In-Reply-To: <1065394450.1224.57.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> References: <3F7B46E8.50707@harvee.org> <1064985457.1046.98.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> <3F7A709A.1030502@solidmatrix.com> <3F7B46E8.50707@harvee.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-davis editorial on sender-pays) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Oct 2003 15:01:33 -0600 At 05:54 PM 10/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 16:28, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >a series of well-though out criticisms. > >Yes, but how does the recipient collect? Where do I trade >my hashcash in for cash and/or valuable prizes? Personally, I like the idea of having it such that instead of the recipient getting the money (which could be prone for abuse), the money instead would go to a charity of their choice. Who knows what might come from that -- perhaps a medical cure for some nasty disease. Of course, if somebody got nixed on a sender pays scheme then they should be notified. (I am assuming here that we are talking about a system where it is generally free but the recipient may charge if they deem the email to be spam.) -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 Mon Oct 6 17:44:31 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 RAA24365 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6d9G-0002wJ-Kf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:44:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96LiAI6011293 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:44:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6d9G-0002vy-HC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:44:10 -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 RAA24328 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6d9D-0004mN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:44:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6d9D-0004mK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:44:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6d97-0002rv-AC; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6d8c-0002qI-EO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:43:32 -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 RAA24269 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6d8Z-0004lF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:43:27 -0400 Received: from law9-oe41.law9.hotmail.com ([64.4.8.98] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6d8Z-0004gz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:43:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:42:57 -0700 Received: from 12.145.89.10 by law9-oe41.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:42:57 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [12.145.89.10] X-Originating-Email: [khirsch314159@hotmail.com] From: "Ken Hirsch" To: "ASRG" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2003 21:42:57.0408 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE5F8800:01C38C52] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 6 Oct 2003 17:42:36 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Markus Stumpf" > You surely mean "block list" and not CRL. > CAs certify identity and if I'd buy a cert that correctly says "you are > mail.example.com" and they'd revoke it because I don't stick to MPC > I'd sue them to Pluto and back. This is not generally true. There are different kinds of certificates that are created for different purposes and their use is subject to contracts. The certificate can be revoked if you fail to abide by the terms of the contract. See, e.g. http://www.verisign.com/repository/agreements/codesigning/subscriber.html I have proposed a specific anti-spam certificate which would only be issued when the subscriber states what anti-spam policy will be followed and contractually agrees to it. > And exactly this is the reason why I don't "trust": > 1) I don't trust CAs in general, because they have done (Verisign/Microsoft) > and probably do enough bullshit with certs. (If I look at what happens > when customers buy certs ... oh my god). The fact that Verisign made a mistake is not a good argument. No system will ever be perfect and certainly the PKI is relatively new. Verisign detected the mistake within a reasonably short period of time and acted to correct it. If someone has suggestions for improvement to the PKI, or an alternative to it, by all means let us know. I haven't seen any system (e.g. "web of trust") that was actually workable. There is now an independent system for standards and auditing of CAs (http://www.webtrust.org/certauth.htm) and many CAs have been credentialed under this program. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 6 20:20:39 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 UAA29342 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6faL-0000iB-I7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h970KH4T002729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:20:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6faL-0000hw-E6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:17 -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 UAA29321 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6faJ-00068J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6faI-00068G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6fa7-0000ep-0b; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6fZB-0000T4-3F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:19:05 -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 UAA29235 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6fZ8-00066H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:19:02 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6fZ8-00066D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:19:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 86094 invoked by uid 1013); 7 Oct 2003 00:19:01 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Ken Hirsch Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC Message-ID: <20031007001901.GF82249@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 7 Oct 2003 02:19:01 +0200 On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:42:36PM -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote: > This is not generally true. Agreed. > I have proposed a specific anti-spam certificate which would only be issued > when the subscriber states what anti-spam policy will be followed and > contractually agrees to it. We're still lacking a classification of anti-spam policies ;-) > > And exactly this is the reason why I don't "trust": > > 1) I don't trust CAs in general, because they have done > (Verisign/Microsoft) > > and probably do enough bullshit with certs. (If I look at what happens > > when customers buy certs ... oh my god). > > The fact that Verisign made a mistake is not a good argument. No system > will ever be perfect and certainly the PKI is relatively new. Verisign > detected the mistake within a reasonably short period of time and acted to > correct it. Granted. But there is no working way to revoke certs currently (and I don't mean any experimental services). If a CA revokes a cert for a servername within the expiration period I'd bet 98% of all browsers/mail clients in the Internet will /not/ recognize it as revoked. Sorry, but the fact that PKI is relatively new is IMHO even lesser an argument. CAs charge a lot of money and they sell dreams and they try to fake the users into trust (and that's what really makes me angry). A proof that revocations don't work is the fact that even antivirus companies had to add the cert to their lists to make them detectable. See Thawtes' SiteSeal for example (another VeriSign company). It is used to display an image on a website to tell the visitor "this site is secure and you can trust it and this is certified by Thawte". This is IMHO bullshit, as the users don't look at the security information of their browser anymore but rather at the image. Suppose I have www.thawet.com how long does it need with a graphics program to fake that sign and all will ignore the warning, because they see the image that says "trust me". And no CA will give me any cent back if the certified website takes the money from my (and others) credit cards and lives happily thereafter on the Cayman Islands. They will however say "it's your fault, why did you trust them?". So why should I trust any cert that I haven't made myself? > If someone has suggestions for improvement to the PKI, or an alternative to > it, by all means let us know. I haven't seen any system (e.g. "web of > trust") that was actually workable. That's why I said that I trust neither of them. IMHO there should be international binding guidelines what has to be checked and validated before a cert is issued. And there has to be a common jurisdiction in that area. As long as I can patch my documents I have to send to the CA and they have to believe it as they don't contact e.g. german Authorities to validate it the certs are for /dev/null and only useable for the CA as cash machine (as is every new TLD ;-) But this is getting way off topic IMHO so we should stop here and not have Yakov to remind us. \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 Oct 6 21:10:40 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 VAA00682 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6gMg-0002an-FL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h971AEwC009966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:10:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6gMg-0002af-0y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:14 -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 VAA00670 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6gMd-0006Yb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6gMd-0006YY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6gMV-0002XA-6R; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6gLu-0002WY-QI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:09:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00663 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6gLs-0006YU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:09:24 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6gLr-0006YE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:09:23 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2922850; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:09:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:55:06 -0400 At 5:42 PM -0400 10/6/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: >I have proposed a specific anti-spam certificate which would only be issued >when the subscriber states what anti-spam policy will be followed and >contractually agrees to it. AOL currently blocks 2 billion spam messages a day. Over 5% of the internet is in their blacklist. All the major ISPs use trust-based systems based on IP address. Doing triage at that level is the only way they can decide who will get through without heavy filtering, who needs to be filtered, and who needs to be blocked outright. The major "good" bulk senders all know this, and split their mailings onto different IP addresses, depending on whether it's a known good customer, or one about whom they know less. Big customers get a dedicated IP address for their outbound mail. Consider the following DNS entries and think about what they mean. webtv.net. 300 IN MX 10 smtpinvite.mx.webtv.net. webtv.net. 300 IN MX 20 smtpin.mx.webtv.net. This triage isn't just done because they want to avoid false positives, it's done because they want to avoid the cost of filtering so many messages. All those decisions are made *before* the HELO prompt. Trusted email already exists, but the token isn't a cryptographic code--it's an IP address. Where in that environment do you put the code to check a certificate on a particular sender, and what is the performance penalty? Do you think the ISP is actually going to accept the email and begin the transaction before they make a decision? Let alone do a per-domain lookup? The number of IP addresses may be large--but the number of legit mail servers is far smaller than the number of domains. I would assert that the only place that a certificate, or any trust-based system, will be adopted is at the DNS level. As such it will provide an initial level of trust for the given IP address, negating the need for negotiations between ISPs and senders (which is how it's currently done for the big senders). And of course the result will be cached--they certainly won't be decoding certs on every connection. Such a trust system doesn't replace the current system used by the major ISPs, but it makes it more available to smaller companies who can't build their own trust database, and it augments those databases that exist. Yes, this approach has nasty side-effects. Your IP is trusted only as well as the average quality of your users. If you're on a floating IP address you will never be trusted, and often not even allowed to send mail directly. If you don't control your reverse DNS you're in the same boat. But the fact of the matter is that in those cases the major ISPs *already* treat you as a second-class citizen. Your email is never going to be accepted by that smtpinvite MX entry, and it's always going to get maximum filtering--if indeed it's accepted at all. Domain-based or sender-based certificates are nice for techies and cool end-user software that doesn't exist yet, but they provide no value at all to the major ISPs. They don't scale; ISPs are iffy about doing one more DNS lookup on a connection, let alone validating certs. And never mind the infrastructure changes. If you want to provide an authentication system that will get adopted, design one that solves the problem for AOL, MSN, RoadRunner, Earthlink and the other big ISPs. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 7 02:34:42 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 CAA20864 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6lQJ-00088J-KR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:34:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h976YJU5031263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:34:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6lQI-00088A-W6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:34:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20860 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6lQF-0001m5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:34:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6lQE-0001m2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:34:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6lQ1-00085R-N5; Tue, 07 Oct 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 1A6lPu-000850-HS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:33:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20857 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6lPq-0001lz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:33:50 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.84]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6lPq-0001lw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:33:50 -0400 Received: from DXHIRX1 (rdu162-230-108.nc.rr.com [24.162.230.108]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with SMTP id h976VVVx026085 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> From: "Ken Hirsch" To: "ASRG" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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, 7 Oct 2003 02:14:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kee Hinckley" > At 5:42 PM -0400 10/6/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: > >I have proposed a specific anti-spam certificate which would only be issued > >when the subscriber states what anti-spam policy will be followed and > >contractually agrees to it. > > AOL currently blocks 2 billion spam messages a day. Over 5% of the > internet is in their blacklist. So they trust 95% of IP addresses, instead of the 0.1% that they should be trusting.. [...] > Domain-based or sender-based certificates are nice for techies and > cool end-user software that doesn't exist yet, but they provide no > value at all to the major ISPs. They don't scale; ISPs are iffy > about doing one more DNS lookup on a connection, let alone validating > certs. Where is the analysis that it won't scale? It seems to me that the current system where AOL has to block 2 billion spams a day is the one that has high overhead. Does anybody have actual numbers on the overhead for establishing an SSL/TLS session? Compared to, say, a DNS-based scheme? > And never mind the infrastructure changes. If you want to > provide an authentication system that will get adopted, design one > that solves the problem for AOL, MSN, RoadRunner, Earthlink and the > other big ISPs. I won't mind the infrastructure changes because that's what this group is all about. I won't try to redesign the PKI or DNSSEC or TLS; those protocols and systems have already been designed by people who know more than I. But I won't give up on authentication, because without it all the other proposals are a joke. The criminals will run their own name servers and abuse any consent-framework. If authentication must be DNS-based, so be it, but it must be POSITIVE, white-list based authentication, not blacklists, and authentication against a trusted third party, not against name servers of unknown control. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 04:35:50 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 EAA23224 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6nJY-0005ZW-A3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:35:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h978ZSuI021417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:35:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6nJX-0005ZM-Pm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:35:27 -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 EAA23210 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6nJU-0002ew-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:35:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6nJU-0002et-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:35:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6nJB-0005Uc-45; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:35:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6nIV-0005Tc-1u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:34:23 -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 EAA23186 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6nIR-0002eE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:34:19 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6nIM-0002eA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:34:14 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.4] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h978XxCD060160; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:34:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:33:46 +0200 At 2:14 AM -0400 2003/10/07, Ken Hirsch wrote: > So they trust 95% of IP addresses, instead of the 0.1% that they should be > trusting.. Not true. Many of those IP addresses are perfectly trustable. Even the ones in DSL/dial-up space. They're used by responsible people who run reasonably secure MTAs, or they don't run MTAs at all. The problem is that you don't know which ones are trustable and which ones are not. Nor do you know whether this address which was trustable fifteen minutes ago is still trustable now. Worst, there is no feasible way of determining whether or not a particular IP address is trustable, except to watch its behaviour and see if it does anything untrustworthy. Even then, you'd have to make sure that the IP address wasn't spoofed, or that the connection wasn't hijacked, etc.... This is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. > Where is the analysis that it won't scale? It seems to me that the > current system where AOL has to block 2 billion spams a day is the > one that has high overhead. The blocking of 2 billion spams a day is not scalable. Trust me, I worked there, and I helped create the first generation of the anti-spam controls that were used. We ended up having to write our own MTA in order to get the level of control we needed. However, this issue is not relevant to the subject of whether or not they decide to trust a given set of IP addresses, or refuse to trust a different set of IP addresses. The concept as a whole is not scalable, regardless of which trust model is employed. > But I won't give up on authentication, because without it all the > other proposals are a joke. The criminals will run their own name > servers and abuse any consent-framework. Right, and they'll be perfectly happy to be completely authenticated and identifiable. And they'll exist in other countries where you can't touch them legally, and you're right back where you were. Most DDoS attacks these days don't even bother with spoofing source IP addresses, because it's not necessary. I see no difference here. > If authentication must be DNS-based, so be it, but it must be POSITIVE, > white-list based authentication, not blacklists, and authentication > against a trusted third party, not against name servers of unknown > control. Authentication does not help solve the problem. However, towards the end that so many people are focussed on the issue of authentication as opposed to the end result, I agree that it must be done as a white-list based method. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 08:23:35 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 IAA28711 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6qrw-0006Hg-Nn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:23:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h97CNCMM024150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:23:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6qrw-0006HR-ID for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:23:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28708 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6qrv-0004iH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:23:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6qrv-0004iE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:23:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6qrl-0006FL-43; Tue, 07 Oct 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 1A6qr6-0006F2-Dl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:22:20 -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 IAA28704 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6qr5-0004i7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:22:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6qr4-0004hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:22:18 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2924716; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:22:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:21:00 -0400 At 2:14 AM -0400 10/7/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: >From: "Kee Hinckley" >> At 5:42 PM -0400 10/6/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: >> >I have proposed a specific anti-spam certificate which would only be issued >> >when the subscriber states what anti-spam policy will be followed and >> >contractually agrees to it. >> >> AOL currently blocks 2 billion spam messages a day. Over 5% of the >> internet is in their blacklist. > >So they trust 95% of IP addresses, instead of the 0.1% that they should be >trusting.. Not at all. Those are the ones that they know have zero trust. Trust isn't an on/off switch. Different sources have different levels of trust. You can take any sender, whether it be a bulk mailer, ISP or individual company, and judge what percentage of their email will be unwanted. Based on that, you can make certain filtering decisions. > >[...] >> Domain-based or sender-based certificates are nice for techies and >> cool end-user software that doesn't exist yet, but they provide no >> value at all to the major ISPs. They don't scale; ISPs are iffy >> about doing one more DNS lookup on a connection, let alone validating >> certs. > >Where is the analysis that it won't scale? It seems to me that the current Having to check the trust level by performing crytographic protocols on each message won't scale. >Does anybody have actual numbers on the overhead for establishing an SSL/TLS >session? Compared to, say, a DNS-based scheme? SSL/TLS is expensive enough that companies make their business selling dedicated hardware to do the processing. However it has far lower latency than a DNS query. So you've got a time/cpu trade-off. However that analysis falls apart in the long run because DNS information can be cached, whereas SSL has to be done every single time. So, I would say that DNS is more expensive the first time you see a new IP, cheaper thereafter. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 7 10:36:54 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 KAA04401 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6sx0-0003ua-Ld for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:36:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h97EaY36015030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:36:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6sx0-0003uL-Gs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:36:34 -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 KAA04379 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6swy-0006I8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:36:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6swx-0006I3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:36:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6swT-0003pu-KE; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6svY-0003kt-8d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:35:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04312 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6svV-0006Gw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:35:01 -0400 Received: from law9-oe22.law9.hotmail.com ([64.4.8.79] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6svV-0006Gm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:35:01 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 07:34:28 -0700 Received: from 12.145.92.22 by law9-oe22.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:34:26 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [12.145.92.22] X-Originating-Email: [khirsch314159@hotmail.com] From: "Ken Hirsch" To: "ASRG" References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2003 14:34:28.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D1ABB80:01C38CE0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 7 Oct 2003 10:33:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Knowles wrote: > At 2:14 AM -0400 2003/10/07, Ken Hirsch wrote: > Worst, there is no feasible way of determining whether or not a > particular IP address is trustable, except to watch its behaviour and > see if it does anything untrustworthy. Even then, you'd have to make > sure that the IP address wasn't spoofed, or that the connection > wasn't hijacked, etc.... > > > This is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. Of course you can't absolutely guarantee that a server won't be hijacked, but that's no argument for the current system where all IP addresses are presumed innocent. Barring perfection, you can have a system where you do have some assurance of trustworthiness. The very minimum standard should be that you know who's responsible for the server. > > > Where is the analysis that it won't scale? It seems to me that the > > current system where AOL has to block 2 billion spams a day is the > > one that has high overhead. > > The blocking of 2 billion spams a day is not scalable. Trust me, > I worked there, and I helped create the first generation of the > anti-spam controls that were used. We ended up having to write our > own MTA in order to get the level of control we needed. I don't get what point you're trying to make here. If we have an effective system for deterring spam, that's going to reduce the load on the servers. > However, this issue is not relevant to the subject of whether or > not they decide to trust a given set of IP addresses, or refuse to > trust a different set of IP addresses. The concept as a whole is not > scalable, regardless of which trust model is employed. Analysis, please. And define "scalable" please. I see there's overhead but it looks to me that the overhead scales linearly and the work can be distributed among servers rather easily. Also, remind me what scalable solution to spam you are for. If I recall correctly, you're against RMX, challenge-response, as well as PKI authentication. So what solution are you for? Does it have less overhead than authentication? > > > But I won't give up on authentication, because without it all the > > other proposals are a joke. The criminals will run their own name > > servers and abuse any consent-framework. > > Right, and they'll be perfectly happy to be completely > authenticated and identifiable. And they'll exist in other countries > where you can't touch them legally, and you're right back where you > were. If it turns out that some countries decide to become spam havens, then there are means for controlling that. Systems that require cash up front (e.g. www.bondedsender.org) do not require cooperation of the authorities in another country to enforce agreements nor particularly strong identity requirements. And there are other ways. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 12:42:10 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 MAA11094 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6uuB-0002h7-G8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:41:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h97Gflll010351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:41:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6uuB-0002gs-Br for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:41:47 -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 MAA11077 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6uu9-0000cL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:41:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6uu9-0000cH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:41:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6utS-0002eJ-5g; Tue, 07 Oct 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 1A6utH-0002dw-0f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:40:51 -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 MAA11032 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6utF-0000bk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:40:49 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6utE-0000bh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h97GeiC9088344; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:40:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> <006001c38c9c$ee49d9f0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - AMTP (rev 01) - MPC 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: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:34:19 +0200 At 10:33 AM -0400 2003/10/07, Ken Hirsch wrote: > Of course you can't absolutely guarantee that a server won't be hijacked, > but that's no argument for the current system where all IP addresses are > presumed innocent. Barring perfection, you can have a system where you do > have some assurance of trustworthiness. The very minimum standard should be > that you know who's responsible for the server. That's never going to happen. We can't get ISPs to do edge filtering, or bogon filtering. Over 50% of the ccTLD servers are still open public/recursive caching nameservers. The level of incompetence, and total lack of interest in being competent, is overwhelming. You can't even really use transactional authentication (which is only good for a single connection), because the root CA is inherently untrustworthy themselves -- VeriSign/NetSOL wants to pimp the entire Internet for their own personal private profit. > I don't get what point you're trying to make here. If we have an effective > system for deterring spam, that's going to reduce the load on the servers. If it can be deterred, yes. I submit that the only effective deterrence can come from providers who find it unprofitable to provide access or bandwidth to spammers, and who enforce the restrictions at the edge. That will happen the same day that we get ISPs around the world to implement edge and bogon filtering in their routers, so that packet spoofing becomes impossible anywhere on the Internet. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for pigs to fly under their own power and for hell to freeze over. > Analysis, please. And define "scalable" please. I see there's overhead but > it looks to me that the overhead scales linearly and the work can be > distributed among servers rather easily. Scalable means that providers the size of AOL all the way down to one-person shops with less than a dozen customers can implement the same methods, and continue to have a viable business model that allows them to get sleep at night. Scalable means that you don't have to buy a hundred thousand servers with custom hardware accelerators, just to handle the load this week, and then have to dump them and completely replace them with five hundred thousand servers with the next generation of even faster hardware accelerators, next week. Scalable means that the worst reasonable case you can project for workload growth doesn't put us into these kinds of situations. > Also, remind me what scalable solution to spam you are for. If I recall > correctly, you're against RMX, challenge-response, as well as PKI > authentication. So what solution are you for? Does it have less overhead > than authentication? I'm coming around to the view espoused by Paul Vixie where the real problem isn't the spammers, it's the things that the anti-spammers are willing to do to try to "solve" the problem. As bad as the disease is, many of the proposed cures seem to be worse. > If it turns out that some countries decide to become spam havens, then there > are means for controlling that. I doubt it. They're already using hijacked PCs today. Why not continue to use hijacked PCs with their SETI@Home-style distributed CPU power to continue to pose as legitimate systems? > Systems that require cash up front (e.g. > www.bondedsender.org) do not require cooperation of the authorities in > another country to enforce agreements nor particularly strong identity > requirements. And there are other ways. I have yet to see any. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 21:05:59 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 VAA00272 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A72ll-00023v-F6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9815b8F007923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:05:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A72ll-00023i-A4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:37 -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 VAA00210 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A72li-00067t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A72li-00067q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A72lB-0001wf-Tk; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A72kJ-0001vw-CO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:04:09 -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 VAA00167 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A72kG-00066z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:04:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A72kG-00066i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:04:04 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.200.214]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HME00LC5YXTJO@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:03:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [ASRG] 2b. Public Trace Data In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006162044.00bb0a10@mail.uniwares.com> To: Andreas Saurwein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F83625D.8000400@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031006162044.00bb0a10@mail.uniwares.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: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:03:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Andreas Saurwein wrote: > At 6/10/2003 16:00 Monday, you wrote: > >> There were some discussions about creating a reviewer process for >> cleaning >> the data further. >> >> I do question the 15% value. Mainly because I question the definition of >> spam that you used. For example, joke forward and virus mail seem to >> qualify >> as unwanted email. Also depending on the mailing lists that you are >> speaking >> of, they could qualify as unwanted email. > > > This brings us probably back to "The Question": what is spam, or what is > not spam. > While i believe that joke forwards may be "unwanted" mail, they are not > spam (UCE, UBE). People should be able to cope with that on a person to > person level. > > Mailing lists, as found on the spamarchive, are mostly (I guess) lists > to which the people have subscribed, time ago, but do not want anymore. > Instead of unsubscribing (which IS painful for some lists, I know) they > add those lists, senders, etc, to their blacklists, or manually forward > as spam. > > Virus mail is definitely unwanted, but also does not classify as spam > (UCE), maybe as UBE - not sure about that. > That is why the group charter has stayed away from defining what spam is. We want to introduce the notion of consent into the email system to allow users to consent or deny consent to every single mail message, and groups and categories of mail messages. Lack of a strong definition is a problem for efforts such as the SpamArchive.org. The technical considerations document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) states that: " For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is sufficient. The salient point that it is a mass-mailing ensures that discussion covers the broadest concern of the user and provider communities. Mail that is not in some real sense "bulk" cannot flood networks or mailboxes. Essentially all mail that people object to, as "spam", is bulk. For example practically all objectionable advertising mail is also bulk, although modern techniques for targeted advertising can permit extensive content or address tailoring. "Bulk" is usually very difficult for an individual recipient to prove, but almost always easy to recognize in practice. " The working definition used in that document concentrates on the "bulk" aspect of spam which could be a problem when dealing with lists which are also "bulk" by nature as you described above. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 21:43:36 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 VAA00992 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A73M7-0003we-TX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:43:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h981hBav015161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A73M5-0003wR-W2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:43:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00981 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A73M3-0006Pe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:43:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A73M2-0006Pb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:43:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A73Lw-0003t1-VK; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A73Ln-0003sd-8f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:42:51 -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 VAA00978 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A73Lk-0006Op-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:42:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A73Lj-0006Og-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:42:47 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.200.214]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMF00LKB0QBKR@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:42:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing In-reply-to: <1831.192.168.0.7.1065227982.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> To: "Curtis M. Kularski" Cc: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F836B71.7040600@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <28243815898.20031003124100@brandenburg.com> <1831.192.168.0.7.1065227982.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Oct 2003 21:42:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Curtis M. Kularski wrote: > Mr. Crocker, Thank you for suggesting that I do that (although, in > the future, please direct requests for me to me). From answering the > questions I have found a few things I need to explain better in the > draft, and I thought of some ideas for corporate users that may be > more helpful than what I currently have specified. The response > document is attached. > > Curtis > > >> Yakov, >> >> YS> The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: YS> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt >> >> >> >> The author should provide an evaluation of the proposal, such as by >> using the questions/criteria listed in the -techconsider- >> document. >> >> The results are certain to be interesting. >> >> d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg >> InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list >> Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Response to Dave Crocker's request to respond to the Tech-Consider >questions. > > 1. Adoption Effort - The proposed mechanism can be added to existing > implementations of SMTP servers without any major adjustments. The > only additional mechanism required is the ability for a user to add > and remove accounts for his/her account. > Adoption applies to other things besides SMTP servers. What about ISPs and organizations that want to adopt such scheme? Is it feasiable to authomated it? Are support costs factored in? > 2. Threshold of Benefit - users who adopt the mechanism will have > immediate benefits. Success for a user is determined only by the > user's adoption of the procedure. No outside inflence is required. > This is a good thing - its looks alike an edge mechanism rather than a core one. > 3. Impact - Senders will only notice a different email address, > nothing will be technically different for them. Recipients will see > nothing different in the receive proccess, but when distributing > addresses they will have to be concious of what address they assign. > The styles of operation aren't significantly changed. > What about impact on the receivers from the management viewpoint? Would managing this multiple addresses be an issue? > 4. Impact (external) - No effects to external parties will occur. > Legitimate email users will not be blocked by this procedure. > Spammers can pass through for the first time, but as soon as the user > identifies the "TO" address as an address that is being attacked by > SPAM the address can be flagged and all mail to it can be disposed > of. There is no change of nature of email for people who don't adopt. > What about dictionary attacks? Can a spammer use that to find out all of the addresses at a domain (depending on how addresses are generated that might be an awfully long process)? > > 5. Ongoing effort - maintainance is minimal. the users will add or > discontinue addresses as needed. The procedure does not effect affect > regular email. > What about the management effort from the users? Once again, are there automated tools? > 6. Balance of Burden - The burden is mostly on the user, but the > burden is minimal, the only work required is maintaining the list, > and that function could easily be intergrated into an email client to > allow for easy list manipulation. > How easy? Can you provide more details on what burden would the user have? If a user uses thousands of sites, with a unique address for each one, that might be a larger burder than someone's grandmother that uses two. On the other hand, most grandmothers will not be savvy enough to use this. > 7. Use by Full Internet - If everyone adopts it, then everything > should still function normally (except a lot less SPAM). The fabric > of Internet mail should see no ill effects, even if this is used on a > large scale. Ok. > > 8. Growth - Increasing by 1000 times should not be a problem, as long > as the mail servers are upgraded as they would be if this procedure > wasn't in place. The fabric of Internet mail is still safe. > Why would mail servers need to be upgraded? Is there extra functionality required to keep track of the addresses? > 9. Efficiency - The proccess uses existing techniques (although used > for different purposes) efficiently, and this procedure can use them > efficiently also. The proccess will be able to operate at about the > same speed as current, but some mild delays (not more than a few > seconds) could be incurred while mail is being sorted. Proccessing is > a little higher while mail is sorted and the alias is followed, but > existing mails systems do it all the time without any consequences, > storage requirements will be less because the mail is being sorted > and most SPAM is hitting a dead-end box that is deleting mail > instantly. > Ok. > 10. Cost - No major expense will be incurred. > What about costs of management and support on organizational level? > 11. Reliability - Non-SPAM mail should all arrive in its proper > location, the user has control over what gets in and what doesn't. > Non-SPAM is more likely to arrive at its destination and not be lost, > due to both the end user control and the absense of distracting SPAM. > > Ok. > 12. Internet Impact - Only the parts that adopt it. > Ok. > 13. SPAM Impact - SPAM sent to addresses determined by methods other > than guessing, and dictionary attacks should be very well suppressed. > Once an attacked address is identified it can be eliminated, there is > still the issue of the intial mail, which prevents this procedure > from being 100% SPAM-free. > Dictionary attacks are not to be underestimated and it would be interested to see whether the use of creative addressing actually increases them. Something to pass long to the analysis folks. > 14. Circumvention - the only way to circumvent the procedure is to > find another address after the first time mail is sent (because of > the user's ability to kill addresses). If a catch-all is used by the > user it may be circumvented with a simple random addressing (this is > why this was removed from the draft, and discouraged in future > drafts). No effect to non-SPAM mail will occur unless non-SPAM > mailers sell their address lists to SPAMers. > Ok. What about dictionary attacks, isn't thata form of circumvention? > 15. Personal Post/Reply - using the personal email option, which uses > a whitelist, will require the sender to respond to a whitelist > addition request. If the personal option is ommited, then the sender > will initiate an email with the recipient as usual (using the address > provided), but most likely using a unique FROM address. Once a > "trust" is establised the two can use a simple-non unique address if > one is availible. > Is this a form of C/R? > 16. Mailing Lists - mailing lists will be assigned their own address > like anything else used by the user. All replies, etc should still > work. As a personal reccomendation, each list should be given its own > full address on the server, and not just an alias for easy > management, but that should be left to the user's discretion. > Ok. > 17. InterEnterprise - an address shall be issued for each user with > the name of the team in it, such as user.team1@example.net (or > team1@user.example.net). As team affiliation changes the address can > be modified. Intrateam communication should not be affected. For > internal enterprise communication an address similar to the personal > (trusted source) address should be used. What about support and management costs for organizations? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 7 23:55:38 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 XAA03870 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A75Py-00010r-AW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:55:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h983tI99003887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:55:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A75Py-00010c-1X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:55:18 -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 XAA03844 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A75Pv-0007VC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:55:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A75Ps-0007V9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:55:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A75Ph-0000wR-67; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A75PK-0000w1-1L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:54:38 -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 XAA03828 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A75PH-0007Ul-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:54:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A75PH-0007UZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:54:35 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com ([68.27.200.214]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMF00EJK6S3QE@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:52:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8389BD.6080802@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Physical Meeting - Informal ASRG meeting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Oct 2003 23:51:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, As stated prior, Paul will be attending the ISPCon conference during the week of October 20-22. I will be attending another conference, the Open Group Messaging Forum, on the East Coast on October 22nd. If any ASRGers will be at either conference, we want to have an informal BOF or just an informal chat. Let us know. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 01:00:48 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 BAA05136 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A76Qx-0003Po-H8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:00:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9850NvM013122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:00:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A76Qx-0003PZ-5f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:00:23 -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 BAA05125 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A76Qu-0000CY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:00:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A76Qt-0000CV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:00:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A76Qd-0003Lm-6A; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:00:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A76QV-0003LE-PC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:59:58 -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 AAA05103 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A76QS-0000CI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:59:52 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A76QS-0000CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:59:52 -0400 Received: from CPE-24-163-156-161.kc.rr.com (CPE-24-163-156-161.kc.rr.com [24.163.156.161]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h984xghL013375; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:59:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - sender-pays -- was AMTP (rev 01) - MPC From: david nicol To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Ken Hirsch , anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030928211427.01d2a630@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031001203900.01f5eac8@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002025013.01cc0450@mail.bearnet.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002133907.01f2ed80@mail.bearnet.com> <20031002204603.GE36339@Space.Net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065589181.1008.28.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: 07 Oct 2003 23:59:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 19:55, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Big customers get a > dedicated IP address for their outbound mail. And therefore IP address matching is IMO sufficient security to defacilitate spam forgery as a way to steal from a large spammer's sender-pays account. . -- david nicol / in 1310 the Dutch invented insurance _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 04:57:50 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 EAA06824 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 04:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7A8M-00008L-NA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:57:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h988vQgH000428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 04:57:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7A8L-00006p-Bg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:57:25 -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 EAA06820 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 04:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7A8I-0002Mn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:57:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7A8H-0002Mk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:57:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7A7x-0008Vz-O5; Wed, 08 Oct 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 1A7A7G-0008R1-L9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:56:18 -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 EAA06776 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 04:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7A7D-0002Le-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:56:15 -0400 Received: from mw157.mail2world.com ([66.28.189.157] helo=mwsend02la.mail2world.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7A7C-0002Lb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:56:14 -0400 Received: from mwsend01la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.203.17]) by mwsend02la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:55:41 -0700 Received: from mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.202.11]) by mwsend01la.mail2world.com (Vircom SMTPRS 1.4.232) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:55:38 -0700 Received: from mwweb03la (unverified [10.1.4.10]) by mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:55:38 -0700 Received: from [24.147.41.179] by aynacorp.com with HTTP; 10/8/2003 1:55:38 AM PST Message-ID: <11a1001c38d79$f1d20ce0$0a04010a@mail2world.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 thread-index: AcOMhOX3j8/zb7RzQK2TprgwO4HT8A== Thread-Topic: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) From: "Adonis El Fakih" To: , Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1D63A_01C38C4A.399AF130" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:55:38 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1D63A_01C38C4A.399AF130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I thought this post will be a good place for me to contribute. I have been involved in this type of spam prevention. I discussed this model in a document I submitted to IETF early this year under AMDP. Since then I developed a perl module available at CPAN that works with the basics of AMDP design, and there is a commercial software out there called surgemail from netwin (www.netwinsite.com) which also supports epostage based on the proposed system. I also work for a company called Centipaid Corporation which supports this type of payment. I will not bore you with details, and I welcome any questions about this type of spam prevention which we have done a lot of work on. We have conducted good tests using this method, and provide constant feedback to implemented solutions on tips for refining the process. In direct answer to your questions: - The recipient collects from sender. - Sender pays with a digital prepaid card. - the stamp is not attached since it could be reused by others, instead a unique stamp (alphanumeric character) is issued and is valid for one transaction. - A filter detects the postage, autheticates it, and forwards it for delivery if payment checks out. Thanks in advance Adonis <-----Original Message-----> From: david nicol Sent: 10/1/2003 8:55:10 PM To: esj@harvee.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 16:28, Eric S. Johansson wrote: a series of well-though out criticisms. > None of these issues exist with > proof of work stamp based sender-pays. Yes, but how does the recipient collect? Where do I trade my hashcash in for cash and/or valuable prizes? > some folks might see it as a competitive advantage to have a private currency. > They may perceive it as a "lock in" and if they can just get a monopoly, they > will be set for life. I certainly hope so! :) > What's more likely is that there will be a large number of issuers some of which > will settle with others and some of which won't. You have hit the nail on the head regarding my issues with attached stamps. pay2send insists on prepayment by bulk mailers, and is therefore concerned with easily authenticating identities of bulk-mailers to avoid theft from their prepaid pay-to-spam accounts. -- david nicol _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------=_NextPart_000_1D63A_01C38C4A.399AF130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= Hi,
=0A=
=0A= I thought this post will be a good place for me to contribute.
=0A=
=0A= I have been involved in this type of spam prevention. I discussed this = model in a document I submitted to IETF early this year under AMDP. = Since then I developed a perl module available at CPAN that works with = the basics of AMDP design, and there is a commercial software out there = called surgemail from netwin (www.netwinsite.com) which also supports = epostage based on the proposed system.
=0A=
=0A= I also work for a company called Centipaid Corporation which supports = this type of payment. I will not bore you with details, and I welcome = any questions about this type of spam prevention which we have done a = lot of work on. We have conducted good tests using this method, and = provide constant feedback to implemented solutions on tips for refining = the process.
=0A=
=0A= In direct answer to your questions:
=0A=
=0A= - The recipient collects from sender.
=0A= - Sender pays with a digital prepaid card.
=0A= - the stamp is not attached since it could be reused by others, instead = a unique stamp (alphanumeric character) is issued and is valid for one = transaction.
=0A= - A filter detects the postage, autheticates it, and forwards it for = delivery if payment checks out.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= Thanks in advance
=0A=
=0A= Adonis
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= From: david nicol
=0A= Sent: 10/1/2003 8:55:10 PM
=0A= To: esj@harvee.org
=0A= Cc: asrg@ietf.org
=0A= Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] = ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays)
=0A=
=0A= On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 16:28, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
=0A= a series of well-though out criticisms.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= > None of these issues exist with
=0A= > proof of work stamp based sender-pays.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= Yes, but how does the recipient collect? Where do I trade
=0A= my hashcash in for cash and/or valuable prizes?
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= > some folks might see it as a competitive advantage to have a private = currency.
=0A= > They may perceive it as a "lock in" and if they can just get a = monopoly, they
=0A= > will be set for life.
=0A=
=0A= I certainly hope so! :)
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= > What's more likely is that there will be a large number of issuers = some of which
=0A= > will settle with others and some of which won't.
=0A=
=0A= You have hit the nail on the head regarding my issues with attached
=0A= stamps.
=0A=
=0A= pay2send insists on prepayment by bulk mailers, and is therefore
=0A= concerned with easily authenticating identities of bulk-mailers to
=0A= avoid theft from their prepaid pay-to-spam accounts.
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= --
=0A= david nicol
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= _______________________________________________
=0A= Asrg mailing list
=0A= Asrg@ietf.org
=0A= https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg =0A= =0A=
______________________________________________= _________________
Ayna.com the Arabic web starts right here. ------=_NextPart_000_1D63A_01C38C4A.399AF130-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 09:58:43 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 JAA15085 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7EpZ-0007Cm-I5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:58:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h98DwLVn027690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:58:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7EpZ-0007CX-D2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:58:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15060 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7EpX-0005H8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:58:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7EpX-0005H5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:58:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7EpF-0007AD-8j; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7EpD-00079a-DQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:57:59 -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 JAA15029 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7EpB-0005FZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:57:57 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7EpA-0005FW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:57:56 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h98DvZCB073584; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:57:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <11a1001c38d79$f1d20ce0$0a04010a@mail2world.com> References: <11a1001c38d79$f1d20ce0$0a04010a@mail2world.com> To: "Adonis El Fakih" From: Brad Knowles Cc: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg] ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:52:43 +0200 At 1:55 AM -0700 2003/10/08, Adonis El Fakih wrote: > In direct answer to your questions: > > - The recipient collects from sender. > - Sender pays with a digital prepaid card. Can the amount charged to the sender vary, based on whether or not the recipient thinks the message is spam? I.e., I wouldn't want to charge my family or friends anything (in most cases ;-), but I would want to charge spammers. > - the stamp is not attached since it could be reused by others, > instead a unique stamp (alphanumeric character) is issued and > is valid for one transaction. > - A filter detects the postage, autheticates it, and forwards it > for delivery if payment checks out. Does this mean that all mail has to be processed through a central system? If so, is that then forwarded on to the users normal mailbox elsewhere in the world, or are they required to come to the central system to pick up their mail? How do you deal with mail which doesn't have a stamp? -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 14:19:16 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 OAA00923 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Ith-000853-F2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:18:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h98IIrut031057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:18:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Ith-00084q-A4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:18:53 -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 OAA00888 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:18:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ite-0002IH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:18:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ite-0002ID-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:18:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Isr-0007z3-79; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7IsE-0007xi-BR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:17:23 -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 OAA00778 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7IsB-0002GC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:17:19 -0400 Received: from mw157.mail2world.com ([66.28.189.157] helo=mwsend02la.mail2world.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7IsA-0002Fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:17:18 -0400 Received: from mwsend01la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.203.17]) by mwsend02la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:16:42 -0700 Received: from mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.202.11]) by mwsend01la.mail2world.com (Vircom SMTPRS 1.4.232) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:16:41 -0700 Received: from mwweb03la (unverified [10.1.4.10]) by mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:16:42 -0700 Received: from [24.147.41.179] by aynacorp.com with HTTP; 10/8/2003 11:16:41 AM PST thread-index: AcONyFKqAdzD8r4URDO9lOlnn65gGg== Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg]ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) From: "Adonis El Fakih" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays - Article (was Re: [Asrg]ziff-daviseditorial on sender-pays) Message-ID: <1f3ae01c38dc8$52bdc550$0a04010a@mail2world.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1F3AF_01C38D8D.A65EED50" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:16:41 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1F3AF_01C38D8D.A65EED50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, >> In direct answer to your questions: >> >> - The recipient collects from sender. >> - Sender pays with a digital prepaid card. > > Can the amount charged to the sender vary, based on whether or >not the recipient thinks the message is spam? > I.e., I wouldn't want to charge my family or friends anything (in >most cases ;-), but I would want to charge spammers. That is application dependent. The perl code I made available is very basic and does not differentiate but surgemail (www.netwinsite.com) has integrated whitelists and spam ranking algorithms. So if a person is on your white list, they are not charged. Different implementations can decide when to engage the postage requiered feature depending on different thresholds. >> - the stamp is not attached since it could be reused by others, >> instead a unique stamp (alphanumeric character) is issued and >> is valid for one transaction. >> - A filter detects the postage, autheticates it, and forwards it >> for delivery if payment checks out. > > Does this mean that all mail has to be processed through a >central system? If so, is that then forwarded on to the users normal >mailbox elsewhere in the world, or are they required to come to the >central system to pick up their mail? > How do you deal with mail which doesn't have a stamp? No the mail is always routed to the proper SMTP server with postage support, and each implementation does what is sees fit. The current implementation saves the message in "hold" directory and send a payment notification to the sender. The email is assigned a unique id, and the payment url contains that id. Once payment is done, centipaid sends a payment notification to the SMTP server, which release the email for delivery. If no payment is done, the message is deleted. In essence the user does not have to resend the message or have the message held by any other entity. If the message has a stamp header, the stamp number is queried with centipaid and if a payment has been made, the message is delivered without holding. Note that the current solution is a step forward towards full support of postage in emails, which will ultimatly occur. AMDP addresses these issues, and I am sure we will discuss them on this list many times :) Hope this helps. Adonis _______________________________________________________________ Ayna.com the Arabic web starts right here. ------=_NextPart_000_1F3AF_01C38D8D.A65EED50 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

>> In direct answer to your questions:
>>
>> - The recipient collects from sender.
>> - Sender pays with a digital prepaid card.
>
> Can the amount charged to the sender vary, based on whether or
>not the recipient thinks the message is spam?
> I.e., I wouldn't want to charge my family or friends anything (in
>most cases ;-), but I would want to charge spammers.

That is application dependent. The perl code I made available is very basic and does not differentiate but surgemail (www.netwinsite.com) has integrated whitelists and spam ranking algorithms. So if a person is on your white list, they are not charged. Different implementations can decide when to engage the postage requiered feature depending on different thresholds.

>> - the stamp is not attached since it could be reused by others,
>> instead a unique stamp (alphanumeric character) is issued and
>> is valid for one transaction.
>> - A filter detects the postage, autheticates it, and forwards it
>> for delivery if payment checks out.
>
> Does this mean that all mail has to be processed through a
>central system? If so, is that then forwarded on to the users normal
>mailbox elsewhere in the world, or are they required to come to the
>central system to pick up their mail?
> How do you deal with mail which doesn't have a stamp?

No the mail is always routed to the proper SMTP server with postage support, and each implementation does what is sees fit. The current implementation saves the message in "hold" directory and send a payment notification to the sender. The email is assigned a unique id, and the payment url contains that id. Once payment is done, centipaid sends a payment notification to the SMTP server, which release the email for delivery. If no payment is done, the message is deleted.

In essence the user does not have to resend the message or have the message held by any other entity.
If the message has a stamp header, the stamp number is queried with centipaid and if a payment has been made, the message is delivered without holding.

Note that the current solution is a step forward towards full support of postage in emails, which will ultimatly occur. AMDP addresses these issues, and I am sure we will discuss them on this list many times :)

Hope this helps.
Adonis

_______________________________________________________________
Ayna.com the Arabic web starts right here. ------=_NextPart_000_1F3AF_01C38D8D.A65EED50-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 15:04:27 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 PAA03151 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7JbS-0002dU-3r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:04:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h98J46Zi010126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:04:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7JbR-0002dF-SI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:04:05 -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 PAA03101 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7JbO-0002uY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7JbO-0002uV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:04:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7JbN-0002b6-Hs; Wed, 08 Oct 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 1A7Jad-0002XJ-FD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:03:15 -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 PAA03040 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Jaa-0002ti-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:03:12 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7JaZ-0002ta-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:03:12 -0400 Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105] helo=chromatix.demon.co.uk) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.21) id 1A7JaZ-0001RL-Cq; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:03:11 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Physical Meeting - Informal ASRG meeting Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: ASRG list To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <3F8389BD.6080802@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <0F10472D-F9C2-11D7-8085-003065664B7C@chromatix.demon.co.uk> 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: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:03:10 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As stated prior, Paul will be attending the ISPCon conference during > the week of October 20-22. I will be attending another conference, the > Open Group Messaging Forum, on the East Coast on October 22nd. If any > ASRGers will be at either conference, we want to have an informal BOF > or just an informal chat. Let us know. I definitely won't be able to attend in person, but perhaps an IRC session would be helpful to broaden the range. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 17:52:32 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 RAA10924 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ME8-0004ed-Ju for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:52:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h98LqCh8017887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:52:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ME8-0004eQ-EF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:52:12 -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 RAA10918 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ME5-0004xk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:52:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ME5-0004xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:52:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7MDx-0004aJ-9w; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7MDR-0004Yg-GY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 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 RAA10869 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7MDO-0004wj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:51:26 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7MDO-0004wZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:51:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 96164 invoked by uid 1013); 8 Oct 2003 21:51:17 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031008215117.GB95051@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Subject: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of 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: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:51:17 +0200 IMHO it would be useful if we could create some sort of classification of emails. Within this classification it would be possible to define policies. These could be used for something like a combination of e.g. P3P (http://www.w3.org/P3P/) and uce/ube/address policies companies stick too. So a webpage that allows to enter a email address could say: "We strictly stick to classification 3.2.2" To provide some meat for a dicussion here are my thoughts: 1. private email 1. a message from a person I know (or not) the content is non commercial and has private character 2. targetted non-bulk email 1. to private 1. commercial 1. solicited (e.g. your contract ends, here's a offer for a new one) 2. unsolicited who are you and where did you get my address from. "a good friend of you gave us your address because he thinks this might be also useful for you" 2. non-commercial 2. to company 1. solicited 1. customer contact 2. solicitation of an offer 2. unsolicited 1. commercial 2. charitable (our school needs PCs, you have a computer store, maybe you have some elder PCs you can donate) 3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins) 3. bulk email 1. discussion lists 1. opt-in 2. double opt-in 2. announcement lists (newsletters) 1. opt-in 2. double opt-in 3. opt-out (working information provided in message) 4. probably opt-out (no information provided in message, contact sender) 5. bounce handling 6. neither 1.-5. 1. existing sender contact 2. faked sender contact 3. one time mailings 1. info from a business partner 2. info targetted to business but no business partner (considered useful) e.g.: companies that sell various goods get email from a new company whether they are interested to sell their new product 3. info not targetted to business from out of the wild 1. commercial 2. charitable (please support WHO activity for hungry children) 3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins) 4. automated messages/answers *1 1. administrative (DSN) 1. failure notices 2. delay warnings 3. confirm receipt 1. requested (X-Confirm-Receipt) 2. unrequested (e.g. help desk systems that ACK receipt of incident) 3. confirm reading 2. autoresponders 1. out of office / vacation 2. address change 3. challenges (C/R systems) 3. virus notifications 1. for viri that don't fake senders 2. for viri that fake senders 4. email robots - document retrieval - mailingslist management ((un-)subscribe, moderate) - ftp-mailers *1 see also http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt \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 Oct 8 23:14:39 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 XAA20582 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7RFo-0002MQ-Vq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:14:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h993EG9t009068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:14:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7RFo-0002MB-7r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:14:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20559 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7RFm-0000D9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:14:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7RFl-0000D6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:14:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7RFY-0002Jw-UZ; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7REa-0002JC-O9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:13:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20539 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7REY-0000Bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:12:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7REY-0000BH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:12:58 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMG00B02ZK1LY@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:12:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Physical Meeting - Informal ASRG meeting In-reply-to: <0F10472D-F9C2-11D7-8085-003065664B7C@chromatix.demon.co.uk> To: Jonathan Morton Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3F84D200.5020504@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <0F10472D-F9C2-11D7-8085-003065664B7C@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Oct 2003 23:12:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan Morton wrote: >> As stated prior, Paul will be attending the ISPCon conference during >> the week of October 20-22. I will be attending another conference, the >> Open Group Messaging Forum, on the East Coast on October 22nd. If any >> ASRGers will be at either conference, we want to have an informal BOF >> or just an informal chat. Let us know. > > > I definitely won't be able to attend in person, but perhaps an IRC > session would be helpful to broaden the range. > Lets see if others are interested. Syncing timezones would be complicated but not impossible. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 23:44:37 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 XAA21546 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rik-0003ts-9l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h993iAVc014986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:44:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rij-0003td-Lq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:10 -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 XAA21521 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Rih-0000a3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Rih-0000a0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rib-0003pm-B3; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7RiC-0003pC-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:43:36 -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 XAA21502 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ri9-0000ZM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:43:33 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.84]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ri9-0000ZJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:43:33 -0400 Received: from CMK4 (cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com [69.132.32.64]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h993fCVx004236; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id AA9B329D01FA; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:48:43 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:48:43 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <2052.192.168.0.7.1065671323.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <3F836B71.7040600@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> <3F836B71.7040600@solidmatrix.com> Cc: , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 8 Oct 2003 23:48:43 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Responses to Yakov Shafranovich's concerns: >>> Response to Dave Crocker's request to respond to the Tech-Consider > >questions. >> >> 1. Adoption Effort - The proposed mechanism can be added to existing >> implementations of SMTP servers without any major adjustments. The >> only additional mechanism required is the ability for a user to add >> and remove accounts for his/her account. >> > > Adoption applies to other things besides SMTP servers. What about ISPs > and organizations that want to adopt such scheme? Is it feasiable to > authomated it? Are support costs factored in? ISPs would need to add an authenticated form of some type for their users to use for updating their lists. The entire proccess can be easily automated as far as adding support for the mechanism. Assuming that an ISP has a database of users a simple WHILE loop utility could transform the configurations to be what is required for the particular server. Most likely it wouldn't need to be an automated conversion though, it would be best to let it be a per-user option at first and let the users volentarily switch over. As far as when new users are added to the system, their accounts should be created however they normally are, except the "real" address is hidden to the outside world and only the alias addresses that are specified will exist. Initially the ISP will probably want to add an alias for them to use to communicate with the client. >> 2. Threshold of Benefit - users who adopt the mechanism will have >> immediate benefits. Success for a user is determined only by the >> user's adoption of the procedure. No outside inflence is required. >> > > This is a good thing - its looks alike an edge mechanism rather than a > core one. Definately, the last thing I want to do is violate how SMTP operates, and I think that a system to reduce the amount of SPAM should be something that doesn't require everyone to change for it to work. The idea behind this is that even if you are the only person on the internet to ever use this, you will have significant SPAM reduction. >> 3. Impact - Senders will only notice a different email address, >> nothing will be technically different for them. Recipients will see >> nothing different in the receive proccess, but when distributing >> addresses they will have to be concious of what address they assign. >> The styles of operation aren't significantly changed. >> > > What about impact on the receivers from the management viewpoint? Would > managing this multiple addresses be an issue? Most likely it will be something that the user will have to adapt to, but not a major issue. I would like to develop a client-side utility that possibly snaps into the email client to help with the reciever management, but for now i am taking this one step at a time. One thing that may be worth considering here would be some type of queue system (10 day or so queue time), so if the user forgets to add an address, but eventually does add it, then mail can be proccesed, decreasing the chances that mail is lost due to overprotecting the box. >> 4. Impact (external) - No effects to external parties will occur. >> Legitimate email users will not be blocked by this procedure. >> Spammers can pass through for the first time, but as soon as the user >> identifies the "TO" address as an address that is being attacked by >> SPAM the address can be flagged and all mail to it can be disposed of. >> There is no change of nature of email for people who don't adopt. >> > > What about dictionary attacks? Can a spammer use that to find out all of > the addresses at a domain (depending on how addresses are generated > that might be an awfully long process)? > Dictionary attacks are still an issue, but not nearly as big of a problem. With two unique components to the address it becomes increasingly difficult to find valid addresses. First they have to find a valid user, then they have to find an address that the user has authorized. The more creative a user is with their naming for popular sites/words the better protection the user will have. This is a case where the "disposable" factor becomes a very nice feature, if a term is found, then the user just has to kill it. A dictionary attack would most likely not be cost effective for SPAMers who try to attack this mechanism, more effort on a single user's addresses would be required than what would be required for an entire domain that doesn't have this mechanism implemented. >> >> 5. Ongoing effort - maintainance is minimal. the users will add or >> discontinue addresses as needed. The procedure does not effect affect >> regular email. >> > > What about the management effort from the users? Once again, are there > automated tools? This is one of those things that I still need to work out a little better, but as I stated earlier, i would like to see about some type of client snap-in. >> 6. Balance of Burden - The burden is mostly on the user, but the >> burden is minimal, the only work required is maintaining the list, and >> that function could easily be intergrated into an email client to >> allow for easy list manipulation. >> > > How easy? Can you provide more details on what burden would the user > have? If a user uses thousands of sites, with a unique address for each > one, that might be a larger burder than someone's grandmother that uses > two. On the other hand, most grandmothers will not be savvy enough to > use this. If a user uses thousands of sites, then there is reason to use the wildcard alias (with selective alias deactivation availible) for the user's email needs. Granny can adapt just as other users will, it is just a matter of making the utility for adding and removing addresses visible enough. Initially granny probably had problems understanding the concept of how email works, but she used it a few times and learned how to use it effectively. >> 7. Use by Full Internet - If everyone adopts it, then everything >> should still function normally (except a lot less SPAM). The fabric of >> Internet mail should see no ill effects, even if this is used on a >> large scale. > > Ok. > >> >> 8. Growth - Increasing by 1000 times should not be a problem, as long >> as the mail servers are upgraded as they would be if this procedure >> wasn't in place. The fabric of Internet mail is still safe. >> > > Why would mail servers need to be upgraded? Is there extra functionality > required to keep track of the addresses? More users = More traffic. The upgrades mentioned are the maintaince upgrades that administrators would be performing due to user growth anyway. There is no extra functionality required to keep track of the addresses, basicly just store the information however you store user information currently. >> 9. Efficiency - The proccess uses existing techniques (although used >> for different purposes) efficiently, and this procedure can use them >> efficiently also. The proccess will be able to operate at about the >> same speed as current, but some mild delays (not more than a few >> seconds) could be incurred while mail is being sorted. Proccessing is >> a little higher while mail is sorted and the alias is followed, but >> existing mails systems do it all the time without any consequences, >> storage requirements will be less because the mail is being sorted and >> most SPAM is hitting a dead-end box that is deleting mail >> instantly. >> > > Ok. > >> 10. Cost - No major expense will be incurred. >> > > What about costs of management and support on organizational level? Managing the users will require no more effort, resources or expense than it currently does. Adding and dropping users will occur like it does now, only the results will be a little different. Think of it sort of like DNS in this aspect, current email users operate like address records, 1 name to 1 box managed directly by the administrator/automated system. This mechanism is more like a NameServer record, you are creating the user's account, but delegating control of what happens in the namespace to that user's control. In that area there would likely be a small increase in cost for the component that adds aliases for the user on their management side. Support incidents could see a very small increase for ISPs (assuming volentary adoption of the mechanism per user), on the organizational side the number of support incidents could increase significantly for a very short period of time while users adapt, but after it is implemented there should be no more incidents than are incurred with current email practices. >> 11. Reliability - Non-SPAM mail should all arrive in its proper >> location, the user has control over what gets in and what doesn't. >> Non-SPAM is more likely to arrive at its destination and not be lost, >> due to both the end user control and the absense of distracting SPAM. >> >> > > Ok. > >> 12. Internet Impact - Only the parts that adopt it. >> > > Ok. > >> 13. SPAM Impact - SPAM sent to addresses determined by methods other >> than guessing, and dictionary attacks should be very well suppressed. >> Once an attacked address is identified it can be eliminated, there is >> still the issue of the intial mail, which prevents this procedure from >> being 100% SPAM-free. >> > > Dictionary attacks are not to be underestimated and it would be > interested to see whether the use of creative addressing actually > increases them. Something to pass long to the analysis folks. Over the weekend I had a friend to perform a test dictionary attack on my mail server, directed at my subdomain (i have opted to use subdomain for my mail because of the size of the implementation). Out of about 75 addresses I have specified only 1 was hit after a 6 hour attack. I would like to see an analysis of the dictionary attack issue, I have no valid way of testing this other than sample attacks currently. I dont think that the creative addressing method will increase the amount of dictionary attacks, espcially if SPAMers determine that it is a futile effort. >> 14. Circumvention - the only way to circumvent the procedure is to >> find another address after the first time mail is sent (because of the >> user's ability to kill addresses). If a catch-all is used by the user >> it may be circumvented with a simple random addressing (this is why >> this was removed from the draft, and discouraged in future >> drafts). No effect to non-SPAM mail will occur unless non-SPAM >> mailers sell their address lists to SPAMers. >> > > Ok. What about dictionary attacks, isn't thata form of circumvention? Yes, and it still is a very real possibility. Other than issueing addresses as an MD5 string I haven't seen any complete way to avoid dictionary attacks. >> 15. Personal Post/Reply - using the personal email option, which uses >> a whitelist, will require the sender to respond to a whitelist >> addition request. If the personal option is ommited, then the sender >> will initiate an email with the recipient as usual (using the address >> provided), but most likely using a unique FROM address. Once a >> "trust" is establised the two can use a simple-non unique address if >> one is availible. >> > > Is this a form of C/R? C/R? I am unsure of what you mean. >> 16. Mailing Lists - mailing lists will be assigned their own address >> like anything else used by the user. All replies, etc should still >> work. As a personal reccomendation, each list should be given its own >> full address on the server, and not just an alias for easy >> management, but that should be left to the user's discretion. >> > > Ok. > >> 17. InterEnterprise - an address shall be issued for each user with >> the name of the team in it, such as user.team1@example.net (or >> team1@user.example.net). As team affiliation changes the address can >> be modified. Intrateam communication should not be affected. For >> internal enterprise communication an address similar to the personal >> (trusted source) address should be used. > > What about support and management costs for organizations? Initial support would be more costly, the same as with anything new that is implemented network wide that interacts with users. Things I have determined so far: I need to work on the dictionary attack issue and find more detailed information about support and management costs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 8 23:45:25 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 XAA21630 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rjd-00041z-0F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h993j4T0015489 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:45:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rjc-00040v-PJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:04 -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 XAA21563 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Rja-0000an-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Rja-0000ak-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7RjZ-0003yB-KH; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Rid-0003qZ-23 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:03 -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 XAA21518 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ria-0000Zx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:00 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ria-0000ZB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:44:00 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMH0099F10JD8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:43:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F84D962.5030003@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - E-postage - Evaluation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Oct 2003 23:43:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT John Levine was kind to send a long a link to an evaluation of e-postage systems. It is available at: http://www.taugh.com/ Brad Templeton also maintains a document on his website evaluating the concept of e-postage: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 01:01:37 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 BAA23656 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7SvI-00073K-HS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:01:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9951CgB027104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:01:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7SvI-000735-DS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:01:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23633 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7SvF-0001Lo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:01:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7SvF-0001Ll-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:01:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Sv8-00070l-JW; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Suz-0006zn-CV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:00:53 -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 BAA23619 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Suw-0001Lg-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:00:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.dslextreme.com ([66.51.205.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Suv-0001LN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:00:49 -0400 Received: from kit (66-42-13-5.oak.dslextreme.com [66.42.13.5] (may be forged)) by smtp.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h994swFT030956 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:54:59 -0700 Message-ID: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: 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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 8 Oct 2003 22:02:03 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Group. It has recently been demonstrated to me that dealing with spam will require legal solutions along with technical solutions. I received an email to the address I use only for this mailing list. I do not have a prior relationship with the company that sent me the email (or on whose behalf it was sent). In the following process, I had failed to notice that the spam I received was from ecardica.com, not ecardia.net . :-( However, I believe the results are, nonetheless, instructive to the member of this mailing list. I looked up the domain listed in the email (remember, I thought it was ecardia.com) and found the following: ============================ Registrant: HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (ECARDIA-DOM) 2058- 12th Avenue SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 US Domain Name: ECARDIA.NET Administrative Contact: HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (AH9902) aherskowitz@oneworldhealth.org 2058- 12th Avenue SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 US 415 759 8150 fax: 415 759 8164 Technical Contact: Network Solutions, Inc. (HOST-ORG) customerservice@networksolutions.com 21355 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166 US 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 Record expires on 22-Jun-2004. Record created on 23-Jun-1999. Database last updated on 6-Oct-2003 16:24:19 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS8.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.138 NS7.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.137 ============================= (Again, ecardia.net was not the spammer. It was ecardica.com .) Since ecardia.com lists Network Solutions as the technical contact, and Network Solutions is such a fine, upstanding organization, I thought I would complain to them. So I sent the following email to: customerservice@networksolutions.com --- Subject: spam Your customer sent me spam and then claims, " We hate S'pam too! That is why eCardica.com follows and enforces very strict No S'pam and Privacy Policies. We only send to users who have agreed to receive messages about our services, our partner's services, or both." They sent this spam to an email address that I only use for the ASRG spam mailing list. Please cancel their account unless you want to be labeled as being spammer-friendly. Regards, JM ================================================== This is the reply I received from Marvin003, Network Solutions' best (and probably most honest) representative: Dear JM, Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would ask you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities. Best regards, Marvin003 Network Solutions, Inc. http://www.networksolutions.com ============================ Although I directed my complaint to the wrong party, the reply from Network Solutions says that they are part of the problem. And since they are *not* part of the solution their continued use of the name "Network Solutions" is misleading, if not fraudulent. There are laws about that. JM _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 01:23:30 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 BAA24186 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TGU-0008LG-Vn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:23:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h995N6q3032063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:23:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TGU-0008L4-PV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24168 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TGR-0001XJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:23:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TGR-0001XG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:23:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TGP-0008Is-DU; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TFv-0008IP-HZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:22:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24149 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TFs-0001Wq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:22:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TFs-0001WP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:22:28 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMH009165KMD8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:21:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Technical and Legal approaches (was Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient) In-reply-to: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> To: Jed Margolin Cc: Asrg@ietf.org, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Message-id: <3F84F075.2050904@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:21:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed, hope you don't mind. Mod.] Jed Margolin wrote: > Hello, Group. > > It has recently been demonstrated to me that dealing with spam will require > legal solutions along with technical solutions. > > I received an email to the address I use only for this mailing list. I do > not have a prior relationship with the company that sent me the email (or on > whose behalf it was sent). > Keep in mind that the list archives are publicly available on the Internet with the email address un-obscured. This could be a likely source. I myself have recently received a spam message from this domain as well. I tried tracing the domain and it led to a post office or mailboxes Etc. box. You can try the unsubscribe link at your risk: http://ecardica.com/unsubscribe.asp This issue has been raised before. I will contact the IETF folks to see if we can get our archive to display obscured addressed. The MailMan option to do that is set, but since the archive are being created by a different utility, this may require a change elsewhere. IMHO, it is kind of stupid for a spammer to spam members of an anti-spam group. Kind of like sticking your head into the lion's den. > In the following process, I had failed to notice that the spam I received > was from ecardica.com, not ecardia.net . :-( > > However, I believe the results are, nonetheless, instructive to the member > of this mailing list. > > > I looked up the domain listed in the email (remember, I thought it was > ecardia.com) and found the following: > Technical Contact: > Network Solutions, Inc. (HOST-ORG) > customerservice@networksolutions.com > 21355 Ridgetop Circle > Dulles, VA 20166 > US > 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS8.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.138 > NS7.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.137 > (Again, ecardia.net was not the spammer. It was ecardica.com .) > > Since ecardia.com lists Network Solutions as the technical contact, and > Network Solutions is such a fine, upstanding organization, I thought I would > complain to them. > > So I sent the following email to: customerservice@networksolutions.com > --- > Subject: spam > > Your customer sent me spam and then claims, > > " We hate S'pam too! That is why eCardica.com follows and enforces very > strict No S'pam and Privacy Policies. We only send to users who have agreed > to receive messages about our services, our partner's services, or both." > > They sent this spam to an email address that I only use for the ASRG spam > mailing list. > > Please cancel their account unless you want to be labeled as being > spammer-friendly. > > Regards, > > JM > ================================================== > > This is the reply I received from Marvin003, Network Solutions' best (and > probably most honest) representative: > > > Dear JM, > > Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. > > If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would ask > you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities. > > Best regards, > > Marvin003 > Network Solutions, Inc. > http://www.networksolutions.com > > ============================ > > Although I directed my complaint to the wrong party, the reply from Network > Solutions says that they are part of the problem. > > And since they are *not* part of the solution their continued use of the > name "Network Solutions" is misleading, if not fraudulent. > > There are laws about that. Jed, The domain in question was registered at Network Solutions. According to the current ICANN policies, registrars are not required to terminate domain names for spamming. Thus, if the customer service rep thought you where emailing them because of that, he was right. There is also a Verisign guy or two lurking in here, who perhaps can explain their policies better. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 01:29:28 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 BAA24376 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TMF-0000GB-Ek for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:29:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h995T3p1000993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:29:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TMF-0000Fw-8B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:29:03 -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 BAA24359 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TMC-0001bm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:29:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TMB-0001bj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:28:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TMC-0000C9-V5; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TLk-00008I-4c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:28:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24352 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TLg-0001be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:28:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TLg-0001aM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:28:28 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMH007KP5R8YI@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:25:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Cc: Alan DeKok , Eric Dean , Brad Knowles Message-id: <3F84F163.2090308@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Subgroups update Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:25:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, Currently there are three sub-groups operating under the ASRG: ASRG-RMX, ASRG-BCP and CRI. o The RMX subgroup is tasked with reconciling various RMX proposals and is headed by Alan Dekok. o The BCP group is tasked with various BCP issues, concentrating primarily on drafting documents. It is headed by Brad Knowles. o The CRI subgroup is going to be pursing future development of the CRI proposal. It is headed by Eric Dean. All of these subgroups have mailing lists, some of which are private. We'll be making list archives available to everyone very soon. Also, the folks heading the subgroups will be updating the main list at regular intervals. We felt that is what necessary to create subgroups since the list volume on the main list is pretty high. We will create additional subgroups as necessary. If you have questions, please post them on-list or contact the chairs off-list. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 01:39:31 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 BAA24582 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TW0-0000tD-2w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:39:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h995d8JB003413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:39:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TVz-0000sy-01 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:39:08 -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 BAA24558 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TVv-0001gL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:39:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TVv-0001gI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:39:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TVt-0000oK-Cu; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TVM-0000nq-6e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:38:28 -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 BAA24536 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TVI-0001fl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:38:25 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.82] helo=ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TVI-0001fi-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:38:24 -0400 Received: from CMK4 (cpe-069-132-032-064.carolina.rr.com [69.132.32.64]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h995cPLd029432; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from curtis.kularski.us [127.0.0.1] by CMK4 (SMTPD32-6.00) id A58B504D01C2; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:43:39 -0400 Received: from 192.168.0.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user asrg@curtis.kularski.us) by mail.kularski.us with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:43:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <2722.192.168.0.7.1065678219.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: In-Reply-To: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 9 Oct 2003 01:43:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit You state that the guilty party is a member of this list, this cannot be assumed. A web-based archive exists. Please also be aware of guidelines in this group, the number of the area this relates to should be in the subject line. Curtis > > Hello, Group. > > It has recently been demonstrated to me that dealing with spam will > require legal solutions along with technical solutions. > > I received an email to the address I use only for this mailing list. I > do not have a prior relationship with the company that sent me the email > (or on whose behalf it was sent). > > In the following process, I had failed to notice that the spam I > received was from ecardica.com, not ecardia.net . :-( > > However, I believe the results are, nonetheless, instructive to the > member of this mailing list. > > > I looked up the domain listed in the email (remember, I thought it was > ecardia.com) and found the following: > ============================ > Registrant: > HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (ECARDIA-DOM) > 2058- 12th Avenue > SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 > US > > Domain Name: ECARDIA.NET > > Administrative Contact: > HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (AH9902) aherskowitz@oneworldhealth.org > 2058- 12th Avenue > SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 > US > 415 759 8150 fax: 415 759 8164 > > Technical Contact: > Network Solutions, Inc. (HOST-ORG) > customerservice@networksolutions.com > 21355 Ridgetop Circle > Dulles, VA 20166 > US > 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 > > Record expires on 22-Jun-2004. > Record created on 23-Jun-1999. > > Database last updated on 6-Oct-2003 16:24:19 EDT. > > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS8.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.138 > NS7.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.137 > ============================= > (Again, ecardia.net was not the spammer. It was ecardica.com .) > > Since ecardia.com lists Network Solutions as the technical contact, and > Network Solutions is such a fine, upstanding organization, I thought I > would complain to them. > > So I sent the following email to: customerservice@networksolutions.com > --- > Subject: spam > > Your customer sent me spam and then claims, > > " We hate S'pam too! That is why eCardica.com follows and enforces very > strict No S'pam and Privacy Policies. We only send to users who have > agreed to receive messages about our services, our partner's services, > or both." > > They sent this spam to an email address that I only use for the ASRG > spam mailing list. > > Please cancel their account unless you want to be labeled as being > spammer-friendly. > > Regards, > > JM > ================================================== > > This is the reply I received from Marvin003, Network Solutions' best > (and probably most honest) representative: > > > Dear JM, > > Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. > > If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would > ask you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities. > > Best regards, > > Marvin003 > Network Solutions, Inc. > http://www.networksolutions.com > > ============================ > > Although I directed my complaint to the wrong party, the reply from > Network Solutions says that they are part of the problem. > > And since they are *not* part of the solution their continued use of the > name "Network Solutions" is misleading, if not fraudulent. > > There are laws about that. > > > JM > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 9 01:47:26 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 BAA24778 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Tdf-0001N0-Bg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:47:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h995l3vu005260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:47:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Tdf-0001Ml-6h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:47:03 -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 BAA24764 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Tdb-0001kJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:47:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Tdb-0001kG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:46:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Tdc-0001J0-OH; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7TdG-0001Hj-9c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:46:38 -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 BAA24742 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TdD-0001jd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:46:35 -0400 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7TdC-0001jT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:46:34 -0400 Received: from apollo (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h995kTUd018449 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:46:29 +0200 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by apollo.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-4) id h995kCdT002689 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:46:12 +0200 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031009054611.GA2649@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: [Asrg] draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:46:12 +0200 Hi, the 03 version of RMX is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 05:00:02 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 FAA12488 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7We4-0006Td-TF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:59:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h998xeTx024891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 04:59:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7We4-0006TO-L2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:59:40 -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 EAA12461 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 04:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7We1-0003nH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:59:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7We1-0003nE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:59:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7WdV-0006O4-6g; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:59:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7WcT-00068k-It for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:58:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12394 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 04:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WcQ-0003kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:57:58 -0400 Received: from bay2-f12.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.12] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WcP-0003kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:57:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:57:28 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:57:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [ASRG] 2. analysis, "regional" spam and legal actions ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2003 08:57:28.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DCFAC30:01C38E43] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:57:28 -0200 Can the list confirm a pequliar (though positive if true) behaviour my spambox statistics experienced over the last 2 weeks. From having 50 % Asian spams, I get ca 1 asian spam a day, all koreans have suddenly disappered. From ca 7 to 1 a day in two steps around Sept 29 and Oct 5. Due to how my ISP's SpamAssassin and my own Ernest is configured, the asian headers should still been in my statistics file, if they got into our mail system. Anyone seeing the same pattern? Is it an effect of the new korean laws or is a trunk ISP killing all this spam (for ex. Korean gov)? If the koreans have gone away, we need to reflect why and if appliable elsewhere. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 05:02:39 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 FAA12584 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Wgb-0006rv-Bw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:02:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9992HLS026403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:02:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Wga-0006rl-UR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:02:16 -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 FAA12552 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WgX-0003pR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:02:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WgX-0003pO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:02:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7WgM-0006kQ-1L; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:02:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7WfS-0006h0-Fm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:01:06 -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 FAA12516 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WfP-0003o8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:01:03 -0400 Received: from smtp.dslextreme.com ([66.51.205.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7WfO-0003nw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:01:02 -0400 Received: from kit (66-42-13-11.oak.dslextreme.com [66.42.13.11] (may be forged)) by smtp.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h998tEFT018104 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:55:14 -0700 Message-ID: <000901c38e44$0c7636a0$0b0d2a42@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> <2722.192.168.0.7.1065678219.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient 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, 9 Oct 2003 02:00:11 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis M. Kularski" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient > You state that the guilty party is a member of this list, this cannot be > assumed. A web-based archive exists. > > > Curtis I did not state that the guilty party is a member of this list. I am well aware that the archive is publicly available. The point of my missive was that when a company like Network Solutions takes the position that they do not care if their customers are spammers and, instead, advises me, " If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would ask you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities," then technical solutions will not be sufficient and it will be necessary to have laws in order to take action against spammers and the companies that are spammer-friendly. > Please also be aware of guidelines in this group, the number of the area > this relates to should be in the subject line. Sorry, I must have missed the memo. What is the number for this topic area? (Your reply didn't have an area number, either.) JM ================================= > > Hello, Group. > > > > It has recently been demonstrated to me that dealing with spam will > > require legal solutions along with technical solutions. > > > > I received an email to the address I use only for this mailing list. I > > do not have a prior relationship with the company that sent me the email > > (or on whose behalf it was sent). > > > > In the following process, I had failed to notice that the spam I > > received was from ecardica.com, not ecardia.net . :-( > > > > However, I believe the results are, nonetheless, instructive to the > > member of this mailing list. > > > > > > I looked up the domain listed in the email (remember, I thought it was > > ecardia.com) and found the following: > > ============================ > > Registrant: > > HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (ECARDIA-DOM) > > 2058- 12th Avenue > > SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 > > US > > > > Domain Name: ECARDIA.NET > > > > Administrative Contact: > > HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (AH9902) aherskowitz@oneworldhealth.org > > 2058- 12th Avenue > > SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 > > US > > 415 759 8150 fax: 415 759 8164 > > > > Technical Contact: > > Network Solutions, Inc. (HOST-ORG) > > customerservice@networksolutions.com > > 21355 Ridgetop Circle > > Dulles, VA 20166 > > US > > 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 > > > > Record expires on 22-Jun-2004. > > Record created on 23-Jun-1999. > > > > Database last updated on 6-Oct-2003 16:24:19 EDT. > > > > Domain servers in listed order: > > > > NS8.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.138 > > NS7.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.137 > > ============================= > > (Again, ecardia.net was not the spammer. It was ecardica.com .) > > > > Since ecardia.com lists Network Solutions as the technical contact, and > > Network Solutions is such a fine, upstanding organization, I thought I > > would complain to them. > > > > So I sent the following email to: customerservice@networksolutions.com > > --- > > Subject: spam > > > > Your customer sent me spam and then claims, > > > > " We hate S'pam too! That is why eCardica.com follows and enforces very > > strict No S'pam and Privacy Policies. We only send to users who have > > agreed to receive messages about our services, our partner's services, > > or both." > > > > They sent this spam to an email address that I only use for the ASRG > > spam mailing list. > > > > Please cancel their account unless you want to be labeled as being > > spammer-friendly. > > > > Regards, > > > > JM > > ================================================== > > > > This is the reply I received from Marvin003, Network Solutions' best > > (and probably most honest) representative: > > > > > > Dear JM, > > > > Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. > > > > If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would > > ask you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marvin003 > > Network Solutions, Inc. > > http://www.networksolutions.com > > > > ============================ > > > > Although I directed my complaint to the wrong party, the reply from > > Network Solutions says that they are part of the problem. > > > > And since they are *not* part of the solution their continued use of the > > name "Network Solutions" is misleading, if not fraudulent. > > > > There are laws about that. > > > > > > JM > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Oct 9 08:14:53 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 IAA17016 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Zgb-0007tG-Mv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:14:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99CETEr030324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:14:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Zgb-0007t1-8E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:14:29 -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 IAA17004 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:14:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Zga-0005ap-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:14:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ZgZ-0005am-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:14:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ZgB-0007nh-13; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:14:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Zfl-0007n0-84 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:13:37 -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 IAA16996 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Zfk-0005aG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:13:36 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Zfj-0005aD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:13:35 -0400 Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105] helo=chromatix.demon.co.uk) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.21) id 1A7ZfJ-0002Hd-4j; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:13:09 +0100 Subject: Re: 0. General - Technical and Legal approaches (was Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Jed Margolin , Asrg@ietf.org, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <3F84F075.2050904@solidmatrix.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, 9 Oct 2003 13:13:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > IMHO, it is kind of stupid for a spammer to spam members of an > anti-spam group. Kind of like sticking your head into the lion's den. I understand someone figured out the vast majority of spam comes from web scrapers - these don't know what kind of group the addresses are coming from. Still, it's kind of amusing to see just how poorly targetted they can be. :o) -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 11:59:00 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 LAA25535 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7dBW-0003po-Kg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99FwcQH014736 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:58:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7dBW-0003pb-Et for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:38 -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 LAA25405 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dBJ-0000FC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dBI-0000F9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7dAu-0003g4-EF; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7dAO-0003fh-Lm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:57:28 -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 LAA25360 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dAN-0000E8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:57:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dAM-0000DV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:57:27 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMH000TIYYJZK@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:56:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F85853B.7080005@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - News Article - Spam and 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: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:56:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A recent Wired article discusses how spammers are turnin to hijacked computers not just for sending spam, but also for hosting the advertised websites. The article is at: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60747,00.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 13:09:48 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 NAA29696 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7eI2-0000wj-Li for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:09:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99H9QCL003633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:09:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7eI2-0000wW-1J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:09:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29679 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:09:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7eI0-0001TK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:09:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7eHz-0001TH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:09:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7eHc-0000sj-E9; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7eGf-0000pr-O9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:08:01 -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 NAA29638 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7eGd-0001SA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:07:59 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7eGc-0001S7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:07:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 6626 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 17:07:56 -0000 Received: from frsc-dialdyna3c-66-228-140-121.advantexcom.net (66.228.140.121) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 17:07:56 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.228.140.121 From: "Terry Sullivan" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Terry Sullivan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Technical and Legal approaches Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:08:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:13:03 +0100, Jonathan Morton wrote: >I understand someone figured out the vast majority of spam comes >from web scrapers - these don't know what kind of group the >addresses are coming from. Minor quibble: When last we heard, best evidence suggests that most spam comes from Usenet scraping, not Web scraping. We should have an even better answer to this question in a few months' time. Speaking of addresses... (clever segue) I recently tried to inspire some interest in a trap-address maintenance effort. Only three people responded (my sincere thanks to all of you--you know who you are). Unfortunately, only one of those three was able to commit the level-of-effort necessary to launch the project. So, I'm donning my "design curmedgeon" hat again, and offering the following observations (and that's all they are...observations): * There is very strong evidence that spam volume is affected by at least one (and possibly many) uncontrolled systematic variable(s). While not truly "noise" in the traditional sense of the word, it is, nonetheless, statistically 'bad' variance. Estimates regarding the size of that systematic 'bad' effect range from factor-of-6 to factor-of-10. * Sadly, the "otherwise identical pairs of addresses" approach I advocated many weeks ago will *NOT* serve as an effective "counter-measure" to this extraneous variance. * As a result, any ASRG study that requires "active spam-seeking" to achieve its research goals has an extremely low probability of achieving statistical significance, regardless of researcher effort/activity. * The off-list correspondence regarding trap addresses has already spawned at least one "passive" (i.e., archival data) characterization project. It's easy to envision several high-payback research efforts in this venue. Anyone who's interested in possibly contributing to analysis/characterization of archival data is invited to drop me an off-list note. - Terry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 13:31:42 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 NAA00550 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ed9-00028V-MN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:31:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99HVFxS008205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:31:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ed9-00028G-Hu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:31:15 -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 NAA00531 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ed3-0001ki-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:31:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ed3-0001kf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:31:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ecw-00023u-CP; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ec2-000206-AZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:30:06 -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 NAA00479 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ec0-0001kN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:30:04 -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 1A7ebz-0001kE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:30:03 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:37:41 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3F7C683E.5020306@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2003 17:37:41.0194 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A10BAA0:01C38E8C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:30:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't see what this would give us that we wouldn't get from a pure whitelist. Since the user must assign a unique email address for communication from each non-trusted source, no source that the user isn't aware of can ever send mail to him; So he might just as well maintain a list of those sources allowed to send mail to him. Providing a structure for transient/disposable email addresses could be useful as working out who the target is can be done by parsing the address instead of by a lookup; but a lookup is still needed to allow (the email address corresponding to) a source to be blacklisted so it probably doesn't work very well after all. I don't think this is useful or will make any contribution to reducing spam. Tom -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich Sent: 02 October 2003 19:03 To: ASRG list Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing The ASRG has been asked to comment on the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-05.txt Abstract: " This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified. " _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 9 13:54:45 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 NAA01481 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ezV-0003hv-QO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:54:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99HsLaR014245 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:54:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ezV-0003hg-L7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:54:21 -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 NAA01458 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ezT-0001zf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:54:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ezS-0001zb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:54:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ezC-0003dG-4Q; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:54:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7ez7-0003ah-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:53:59 -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 NAA01446 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7ez5-0001z2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:53:55 -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 1A7ez3-0001yx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:53:54 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:00:53 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2003 18:00:53.0987 (UTC) FILETIME=[483C1330:01C38E8F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:53:14 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote:- > Throwaway addresses are based on the assumption that sending mail to > a non-existent address is "free". It isn't. I don't think so - I sometimes use throwaway addresses, and the organisations that provide them are interested in collecting information about spam; these throw-away addresses are a cheap way of collecting spam samples - not a free way of doing that. Of course this doesn't apply to the proposal we were asked to comment on, which does seem to be based on the invalid assumption you refer to. Tom _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 9 19:08:18 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 TAA16306 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7jsy-0007Ik-D0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:07:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h99N7uWS028065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:07:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7jsx-0007IS-9t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:07:55 -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 TAA16285 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7jst-0005vu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:07:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7jst-0005vq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:07:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7js5-00070z-OY; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7jrT-0006tL-Nt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:06:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16265 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7jrQ-0005vO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:06:20 -0400 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7jrP-0005vJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:06:19 -0400 Received: from [158.125.1.222] (helo=torch.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A7jrN-0007In-P6 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:06:17 +0100 Received: from apache by torch.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1A7jrN-0000Zp-JN for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:06:17 +0100 Received: from cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com [213.107.116.201]) by student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:06:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1065740777.3f85e9e98be76@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 213.107.116.201 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1A7jrN-0007In-P6*rolp2WV65Lw* X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:06:17 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:06:17 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello everyone I've been away thinking about the spam issue for a while and have a suggestion which may help to analyse the likely impact of anti-spam proposals upon the way e-mail is currently used. What I suggest is to come up with a set of scenarios which together describe all of the different ways in which e-mail is used and can be referred to by number. For example: 1 Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob (bob@somewhere.org). Alice has previously e-mailed Bob from that address. 2 Alice has acquired a new e-mail address (alice@other.com). She has previously e-mailed Bob from her other address and is known to him: (a) Alice has not told Bob in advance of her new address: the first he finds out is when she sends him a message from the new address. (b) Alice knows her new e-mail address in advance and informs Bob of it either by e-mail from her existing address or by some out-of-band method. Bob might then, depending on his MUA and anti-spam software, be able to whitelist Alice's new address or establish prior consent for future e-mail. ... etc. These are just a few simple examples, but given a set of standard scenarios which describe how e-mail is used, we could easily analyse new proposals. One could simply say "Proposal X does not allow use case 3" or "Proposal Y requires a change to use case 5" Having a reasonably comprehensive set of examples would also encourage the authors of proposals to consider the impact of their suggestions on some of the less common ways in which e-mail is actually used. I am working on such a document for my degree project and would be happy to show it to the group if it would be of any help or interest. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 04:23:13 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 EAA13777 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7sXu-000763-68 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9A8MkGZ027273 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7sXs-00075n-R4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:44 -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 EAA13761 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7sXp-0003mI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7sXp-0003mF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7sXB-00071b-98; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7sWv-000717-9C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:21:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13742 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7sWs-0003lp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:21:42 -0400 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7sWr-0003lm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:21:41 -0400 Received: from [158.125.1.222] (helo=torch.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A7sWr-0007x7-EI; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:21:41 +0100 Received: from apache by torch.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1A7sWr-0005OR-8m; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:21:41 +0100 Received: from cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com [213.107.116.201]) by student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:21:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1065774101.3f866c15398eb@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: scenarios (was: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of messages]) References: <20031010002048.GF12676@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20031010002048.GF12676@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 213.107.116.201 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1A7sWr-0007x7-EI*Xe27SqW3ex6* X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:21:41 +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: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:21:41 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for the info. I've had a quick skim through your taxonomy and there's some good ideas in there. My main criterion for the classification was to classify things into different categories only if a machine could reasonably recognise the difference between them. Whilst I agree with you that there is a difference between, for example, targetted non-bulk commerical mail and private e-mail, I am sceptical that a machine could tell the difference (in general). They might be able recognise whether the same address had previously sent e-mail to the reciever, to verify a digital signature or perhaps use some statistical method to estimate the probability of that message being spam. However, given a targetted message from some previously-unseen address it is very difficult for a machine to classify the message as one or the other. I don't mean this as a criticism of your taxonomy, because it looks to me to be very thorough and comprehensive. I just think that there's a slightly different focus in what I'm doing, which is looking at how e-mail is used from a machine's perspective. Since the machine has no idea whether a message is targetted or not, that part of the taxonomy does not translate into machine-based scenarios. However, thanks for the feedback and I'm sure that some of your ideas would be useful in developing machine-oriented scenarios. Further comments welcome... Andrew Quoting Markus Stumpf : > I have posted that message yesterday. > IMHO it aims in the same direction. > > \Maex > > > ----- Forwarded message from Markus Stumpf > ----- > > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:51:17 +0200 > Return-Path: > Delivered-To: maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@space.net > To: asrg@ietf.org > From: Markus Stumpf > Subject: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of messages > > IMHO it would be useful if we could create some sort of classification > of emails. Within this classification it would be possible to define > policies. These could be used for something like a combination of e.g. > P3P (http://www.w3.org/P3P/) and uce/ube/address policies companies > stick too. So a webpage that allows to enter a email address could say: > "We strictly stick to classification 3.2.2" > > To provide some meat for a dicussion here are my thoughts: > > 1. private email > 1. a message from a person I know (or not) > the content is non commercial and has private character > 2. targetted non-bulk email > 1. to private > 1. commercial > 1. solicited (e.g. your contract ends, here's a offer for a new one) > 2. unsolicited > who are you and where did you get my address from. > "a good friend of you gave us your address because he thinks > this might be also useful for you" > 2. non-commercial > 2. to company > 1. solicited > 1. customer contact > 2. solicitation of an offer > 2. unsolicited > 1. commercial > 2. charitable (our school needs PCs, you have a computer > store, maybe you have some elder PCs you can donate) > 3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins) > 3. bulk email > 1. discussion lists > 1. opt-in > 2. double opt-in > 2. announcement lists (newsletters) > 1. opt-in > 2. double opt-in > 3. opt-out (working information provided in message) > 4. probably opt-out (no information provided in message, contact > sender) > 5. bounce handling > 6. neither 1.-5. > 1. existing sender contact > 2. faked sender contact > 3. one time mailings > 1. info from a business partner > 2. info targetted to business but no business partner (considered > useful) > e.g.: companies that sell various goods get email from a new > company whether they are interested to sell their new product > 3. info not targetted to business from out of the wild > 1. commercial > 2. charitable (please support WHO activity for hungry children) > 3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins) > 4. automated messages/answers *1 > 1. administrative (DSN) > 1. failure notices > 2. delay warnings > 3. confirm receipt > 1. requested (X-Confirm-Receipt) > 2. unrequested (e.g. help desk systems that ACK receipt of > incident) > 3. confirm reading > 2. autoresponders > 1. out of office / vacation > 2. address change > 3. challenges (C/R systems) > 3. virus notifications > 1. for viri that don't fake senders > 2. for viri that fake senders > 4. email robots > - document retrieval > - mailingslist management ((un-)subscribe, moderate) > - ftp-mailers > > *1 see also > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt > > > \Maex > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) > 32356-0 > Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) > 32356-299 > "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is > reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 12:28:54 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 MAA05893 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A807y-0007Yf-HD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AGSUBl029049 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A807y-0007YS-DI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05875 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A807w-0005tE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A807w-0005tB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A807W-0007SP-3Z; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8074-0007RT-UC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05841 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8073-0005rz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:33 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8072-0005rW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:32 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMJ00IRZV10JA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:27:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Technical Solutions (was Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient) In-reply-to: <000901c38e44$0c7636a0$0b0d2a42@kit> To: Jed Margolin Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F86DDD2.1080204@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> <2722.192.168.0.7.1065678219.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> <000901c38e44$0c7636a0$0b0d2a42@kit> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:26:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jed Margolin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Curtis M. Kularski" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Technical solutions will not be sufficient > > > >>You state that the guilty party is a member of this list, this cannot be >>assumed. A web-based archive exists. >> >> >>Curtis > > > > I did not state that the guilty party is a member of this list. I am well > aware that the archive is publicly available. > > The point of my missive was that when a company like Network Solutions takes > the position that they do not care if their customers are spammers and, > instead, advises me, " If the domain owner in question is conducting > criminal activity we would ask you to defer to either the police or the > proper authorities," then technical solutions will not be sufficient and it > will be necessary to have laws in order to take action against spammers and > the companies that are spammer-friendly. > ICANN's policies do not forbid spamming for domain owners. Thus, registries cannot be relied upon to policy domain owners. > > > >>Please also be aware of guidelines in this group, the number of the area >>this relates to should be in the subject line. > > > Sorry, I must have missed the memo. > > What is the number for this topic area? (Your reply didn't have an area > number, either.) "0. General". > > > JM > ================================= > >>>Hello, Group. >>> >>>It has recently been demonstrated to me that dealing with spam will >>>require legal solutions along with technical solutions. >>> >>>I received an email to the address I use only for this mailing list. I >>>do not have a prior relationship with the company that sent me the email >>>(or on whose behalf it was sent). >>> >>>In the following process, I had failed to notice that the spam I >>>received was from ecardica.com, not ecardia.net . :-( >>> >>>However, I believe the results are, nonetheless, instructive to the >>>member of this mailing list. >>> >>> >>>I looked up the domain listed in the email (remember, I thought it was >>>ecardia.com) and found the following: >>>============================ >>>Registrant: >>>HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (ECARDIA-DOM) >>> 2058- 12th Avenue >>> SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 >>> US >>> >>> Domain Name: ECARDIA.NET >>> >>> Administrative Contact: >>> HERSKOWITZ, AHVIE (AH9902) aherskowitz@oneworldhealth.org >>> 2058- 12th Avenue >>> SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 >>> US >>> 415 759 8150 fax: 415 759 8164 >>> >>> Technical Contact: >>> Network Solutions, Inc. (HOST-ORG) >>>customerservice@networksolutions.com >>> 21355 Ridgetop Circle >>> Dulles, VA 20166 >>> US >>> 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 >>> >>> Record expires on 22-Jun-2004. >>> Record created on 23-Jun-1999. >>> >>> Database last updated on 6-Oct-2003 16:24:19 EDT. >>> >>> Domain servers in listed order: >>> >>> NS8.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.138 >>> NS7.WORLDNIC.COM 216.168.225.137 >>>============================= >>>(Again, ecardia.net was not the spammer. It was ecardica.com .) >>> >>>Since ecardia.com lists Network Solutions as the technical contact, and >>>Network Solutions is such a fine, upstanding organization, I thought I >>>would complain to them. >>> >>>So I sent the following email to: customerservice@networksolutions.com >>>--- >>>Subject: spam >>> >>>Your customer sent me spam and then claims, >>> >>>" We hate S'pam too! That is why eCardica.com follows and enforces very >>>strict No S'pam and Privacy Policies. We only send to users who have >>>agreed to receive messages about our services, our partner's services, >>>or both." >>> >>>They sent this spam to an email address that I only use for the ASRG >>>spam mailing list. >>> >>>Please cancel their account unless you want to be labeled as being >>>spammer-friendly. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>JM >>>================================================== >>> >>>This is the reply I received from Marvin003, Network Solutions' best >>>(and probably most honest) representative: >>> >>> >>>Dear JM, >>> >>>Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. >>> >>>If the domain owner in question is conducting criminal activity we would >>>ask you to defer to either the police or the proper authorities. >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>Marvin003 >>>Network Solutions, Inc. >>>http://www.networksolutions.com >>> >>>============================ >>> >>>Although I directed my complaint to the wrong party, the reply from >>>Network Solutions says that they are part of the problem. >>> >>>And since they are *not* part of the solution their continued use of the >>>name "Network Solutions" is misleading, if not fraudulent. >>> >>>There are laws about that. >>> >>> >>>JM >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Fri Oct 10 12:37:31 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 MAA06401 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80GM-0008CH-4E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AGbAc0031503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80GL-0008C2-Q0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:09 -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 MAA06363 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80GK-000623-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80GJ-000620-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:37:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80GD-000863-MV; Fri, 10 Oct 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 1A80G7-00085O-3l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:36:55 -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 MAA06353 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80G5-00061p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:36:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80G4-00061P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:36:53 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMJ00HDEVEVCU@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:35:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F86DFC6.6090903@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Addtional subgroup created for 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, 10 Oct 2003 12:35:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, We have added an additional subgroup and mailing list for the analysis and characterization work. If you want to join, post to the main list. We'll be providing more information next week or two on subgroups, how they operate, how they interface with the main list, and where their list archives can be found. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 13:09:37 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 NAA07983 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80lN-0002fc-OG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AH9DmS010258 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80lN-0002f9-Eo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:13 -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 NAA07942 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80lL-0006O4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80lL-0006O1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80lB-0002br-SL; Fri, 10 Oct 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 1A80kr-0002bK-VB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:08:41 -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 NAA07934 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80kp-0006Nm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:08:39 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80ko-0006Nj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:08:38 -0400 Received: from laptop (CPE-65-26-96-104.kc.rr.com [65.26.96.104]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id h9AH8XLU004898 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:08:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00d601c38f51$25e874a0$6601a8c0@laptop> From: "Trusted Mailer Support" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C38F27.3B7A6780" 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 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - transparent authentication scheme and cost-shifting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:08:36 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C38F27.3B7A6780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been following discussions on this mailing list for months now and = I've discussed similar issues in face-to-face meetings with the heads of = major abuse departments (AOL, Yahoo, MSN, etc.). I've testified in = state senate hearings on several state anti-spam measures on behalf of = the Internet Alliance. I've also met with anti-spam solution providers, = including Brightmail and others. Recently, I took elements from these = discussions and joined up with several of us anti-spammer types to draft = a Master Solution to the epidemic. I would like to contribute our work = to the public good in hopes that the industry will adopt at least some = of these concepts. It is my hope that these ideas can be further = developed in public forums, such as this one, and kept in a nonprofit, = public good context. =20 The solution holds mailers accountable by offering a transparent = authentication scheme that allows ISPs to block spam while delivering = legitimate permission-based email on the senders' dime. At its core, = the system essentially blocks all "bulk" email unless the bulk sender = has the system's x-header authentication scheme contained within the = email header. The system has several layers of anti-spoofing steps it = runs through before accepting the email message (done in a way that will = not jam servers and cause deliver delays). The system then counts the = legitimate bulk email and thereafter charges the bulk emailer on a = cost-per-thousand basis, with the proceeds covering enforcement with the = remainder distributed to participating ISPs as cost of receipt = reimbursement. To earn the trust of participating ISPs and a license to use the = x-header authentication scheme, the sender must register with the = system: (1) the sender's permission status, (2) legal entity name, (3) = sender domain(s), and (4) sender IP address(es). The sender must also = agree to have all email blocked by participating ISPs that do not carry = the authentication scheme. The sender must also agree to permission = compliance and unsubscribe process monitoring and agree to pay the = tolling system. The system also offers transparency on a per-send level. Elements = within the x-headers will allow for system admin that question the = legitimacy of the deliver to verify the opt-in permission status using a = web-based look-up with the following sample output: Entity: JavaScript Magazine Status: Legitimate Sender Permission Status: Double Opt-in Registered Send Domain(s): JavaScriptMag.com Registered IP Address(es): 64.123.243.0/24 -----------------------------------------=20 Recipient: John Doe Opt-in Website: JavaScriptMag.com Opt-in Date: March 13, 2002 Opt-in Confirmation: March 13, 2002 (18:32:56) Status: Active (no unsubscribe action taken) Anyway, that's a taste. Send me an email if you'd like to learn more = about the project. Toby ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C38F27.3B7A6780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've been following discussions on this = mailing=20 list for months now and I've discussed similar issues in = face-to-face=20 meetings with the heads of major abuse departments (AOL, Yahoo, = MSN,=20 etc.).  I've testified in state senate hearings on several state = anti-spam=20 measures on behalf of the Internet Alliance.  I've also met with = anti-spam=20 solution providers, including Brightmail and others.  =20 Recently, I took elements from = these=20 discussions and joined up with several of us anti-spammer types to=20 draft a Master Solution to the epidemic.   I would like = to=20 contribute our work to the public good in hopes that the industry will = adopt at=20 least some of these concepts.  It is my hope that these ideas can = be=20 further developed in public forums, such as this one, and kept in a = nonprofit,=20 public good context. 
 
The solution holds mailers = accountable by=20 offering a transparent authentication scheme that allows ISPs to block = spam=20 while delivering legitimate permission-based email on the senders' = dime. =20 At its core, the system essentially blocks all "bulk" email unless the = bulk=20 sender has the system's x-header authentication scheme contained within = the=20 email header.  The system has several layers of anti-spoofing steps = it runs=20 through before accepting the email message (done in a way that will not = jam=20 servers and cause deliver delays).  The system then counts the = legitimate=20 bulk email and thereafter charges the bulk emailer on a = cost-per-thousand basis,=20 with the proceeds covering enforcement with the remainder distributed to = participating ISPs as cost of receipt reimbursement.
 
To earn the trust of participating ISPs = and a=20 license to use the x-header authentication scheme, the sender must = register with=20 the system: (1) the sender's permission status, (2) legal entity name, = (3)=20 sender domain(s), and (4) sender IP address(es).  The sender must = also=20 agree to have all email blocked by participating ISPs that do = not=20 carry the authentication scheme.  The sender must also agree to = permission=20 compliance and unsubscribe process monitoring and agree to pay the = tolling=20 system.
 
The system also offers transparency on = a per-send=20 level.  Elements within the x-headers will allow for system admin = that=20 question the legitimacy of the deliver to verify the opt-in permission = status=20 using a web-based look-up with the following sample output:
 
Entity: JavaScript Magazine
Status: = Legitimate=20 Sender
Permission Status: Double Opt-in
Registered Send Domain(s): = JavaScriptMag.com
Registered IP Address(es):=20 64.123.243.0/24
----------------------------------------- =

Recipient: John Doe
Opt-in Website:=20 JavaScriptMag.com
Opt-in Date: March 13, 2002
Opt-in Confirmation: = March=20 13, 2002 (18:32:56)
Status: Active (no unsubscribe action=20 taken)

Anyway, that's a taste.  Send = me an email=20 if you'd like to learn more about the project.
 
Toby
------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C38F27.3B7A6780-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 13:20:40 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 NAA08369 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80w7-0003AJ-TY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AHKJ3X012161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80w7-0003A4-OZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08340 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80w2-0006Wf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80w1-0006Wc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80vq-00035B-6L; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A80vJ-00034I-Iv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:19:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08321 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80vH-0006W5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:19:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A80vG-0006Vb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:19:27 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMJ00IVUXFKJA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:18:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F86E9FF.5000901@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - List Archive - Obsuring 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: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:18:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I have contacted the IETF to change the settings on our archive so email addresses are obscured in order to avoid address harvesting. The IETF has notified me that they are considering the change and are awaiting approval. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 14:04:45 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 OAA10028 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A81ck-00064d-K2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AI4MBt023341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A81ck-00064O-EJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:22 -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 OAA10020 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A81ch-00072a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A81ch-00072X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A81cP-00060j-CN; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A81c2-00060F-D3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:38 -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 OAA10007 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A81bz-00072I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A81bz-000722-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:35 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMJ00AR5ZFM0Z@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:02:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 8a. Evaluation Model - Scenarios (was Re: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios) In-reply-to: <1065740777.3f85e9e98be76@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> To: Andrew Akehurst Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F86F421.2090500@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <1065740777.3f85e9e98be76@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:02:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Andrew Akehurst wrote: > Hello everyone > > I've been away thinking about the spam issue for a while and > have a suggestion which may help to analyse the likely impact > of anti-spam proposals upon the way e-mail is currently used. > > What I suggest is to come up with a set of scenarios which > together describe all of the different ways in which e-mail > is used and can be referred to by number. > I believe that this can be a useful contribution to the evaluation model. We need to take the requirements document and the tech considerations documents, and make an evaluation model based on them. Scenarios are already touched on a little bit in the tech considerations document. > For example: > > 1 Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob > (bob@somewhere.org). Alice has previously e-mailed Bob > from that address. > > 2 Alice has acquired a new e-mail address (alice@other.com). > She has previously e-mailed Bob from her other address and > is known to him: > > (a) Alice has not told Bob in advance of her new address: the > first he finds out is when she sends him a message from > the new address. > > (b) Alice knows her new e-mail address in advance and informs > Bob of it either by e-mail from her existing address or by > some out-of-band method. Bob might then, depending on his > MUA and anti-spam software, be able to whitelist Alice's > new address or establish prior consent for future e-mail. > > ... etc. > > These are just a few simple examples, but given a set of > standard scenarios which describe how e-mail is used, we > could easily analyse new proposals. One could simply say > "Proposal X does not allow use case 3" or "Proposal Y > requires a change to use case 5" > > Having a reasonably comprehensive set of examples would > also encourage the authors of proposals to consider the > impact of their suggestions on some of the less common > ways in which e-mail is actually used. > > I am working on such a document for my degree project > and would be happy to show it to the group if it would be > of any help or interest. > Please, we would love to see it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 16:04:16 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 QAA18936 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A83UJ-0008Oz-2r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9AK3lct032293 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A83UI-0008Om-TF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:46 -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 QAA18875 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A83UH-0001SN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A83UG-0001SK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A83Ta-0008JH-3E; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A83TG-0008IL-GB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:02:44 -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 QAA18724 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A83TD-0001OD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:02:39 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A83TC-0001Nq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:02:38 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9AK1tCF092257; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:02:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d601c38f51$25e874a0$6601a8c0@laptop> References: <00d601c38f51$25e874a0$6601a8c0@laptop> To: "Trusted Mailer Support" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - transparent authentication scheme and cost-shifting 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: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:01:37 +0200 At 12:08 PM -0500 2003/10/10, Trusted Mailer Support wrote: > At its core, > the system essentially blocks all "bulk" email unless the bulk sender > has the system's x-header authentication scheme contained within the > email header. It will not be an Internet standard for mail with an "X-" header. Period. If you truly want to target an Internet standard, you're going to have to target a real header. You could use an "X-" header during transition, but you'd have to have a strong transition plan for how you can guarantee that would be replaced with the real operational header. If you're making a basic error like this at this stage, then one of the first things I'd suggest is that you re-read all of the relevant RFCs, starting with 2821 and 2822. Quote me chapter and verse from the relevant RFCs, from memory. I know people who can do it. You need to be one of those people. > The system has several layers of anti-spoofing steps > it runs through before accepting the email message (done in a way that > will not jam servers and cause deliver delays). As the former Sr. Internet Mail Administrator for AOL, consultant on a number of very large-scale e-mail projects, author of an invited talk on building large-scale mail systems (presented at LISA 2000), and technical reviewer of a couple of related books, I would be very interested to hear more about how this system can be made scalable. > Anyway, that's a taste. Send me an email if you'd like to learn more > about the project. Therein lies the problem. If you really would "...like to contribute our work to the public good in hopes that the industry will adopt at least some of these concepts", then that discussion would have to take place in a group like ASRG, and in a place like this mailing list. Plenty of people have come to me with a variety of anti-spam projects which have required NDA. I haven't signed one yet. I'm going to be a tough nut to crack. I'm sure I'm not the only one. You're going to have to convince people like me if you want to get very far with such a proposal. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 17:48:42 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 RAA24522 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A857T-0007Bb-Vd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9ALmJSM027617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A857T-0007BM-Rk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:19 -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 RAA24515 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A857R-0003Fq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A857Q-0003Fn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:48:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A857B-00077s-QX; Fri, 10 Oct 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 1A856S-00076h-O3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24497 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A856Q-0003FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:14 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A856P-0003FP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 36328 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Oct 2003 21:47:11 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - transparent authentication scheme and cost-shifting Message-ID: <20031010214711.GY12676@Space.Net> References: <00d601c38f51$25e874a0$6601a8c0@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00d601c38f51$25e874a0$6601a8c0@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:47:11 +0200 On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:08:36PM -0500, Trusted Mailer Support wrote: > jam servers and cause deliver delays). The system then counts the > legitimate bulk email and thereafter charges the bulk emailer on a > cost-per-thousand basis, with the proceeds covering enforcement with the > remainder distributed to participating ISPs as cost of receipt reimbursement. 1) You are talking about the Internet. I live in Europe and just as no US company cares about ISPs in Europe, I don't care about and trust mailservers in China or anywhere else in the world. 2) Ok, you sent me 35000 messages clasified as bulk in one month. So I do charge how much? Does what I get differ from what AOL gets, because their userbase is 100 times the size and they won't let you in unless you pay .. hmmm ... 100 USD/1000 messages? 3) You sent me 35000 messages clasified as bulk, I'd get 35 USD (dumping price). Now you deny it and say it have only been 5000. So where does the clearing take place? How much will it cost? Will it be easier so *sigh* and say "ok then, 5000". 4) You don't pay the money. And now? 5) You do pay the money. Does that mean you will send me 5 USD through some bank account from the US to Germany? Do you have an idea what the costs involved in such a transaction are? > To earn the trust of participating ISPs and a license to use the x-header > authentication scheme, the sender must register with the system: (1) the > sender's permission status, (2) legal entity name, (3) sender domain(s), > and (4) sender IP address(es). The sender must also agree to have all > email blocked by participating ISPs that do not carry the authentication > scheme. The sender must also agree to permission compliance and > unsubscribe process monitoring and agree to pay the tolling system. So, if one of our customers wants to set up a new Newsletter and all his customers have double opted-in he has to contact all of the ISps that his customers have contracts with and make contracts with them to get his Newsletter delivered to his customers that demanded to receive the Newsletter? Do you mean this serious? > Anyway, that's a taste. Send me an email if you'd like to learn more > about the project. You said you "like to contribute our work to the public good". So where is the link to the whitepaper? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 19:25:12 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 TAA29586 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A86cs-0004eV-A1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9ANOoRC017879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A86cs-0004eI-69 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:50 -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 TAA29577 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A86cq-0004cg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A86cq-0004cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A86c5-0004a2-Er; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A86bW-0004Vu-HS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:23:26 -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 TAA29556 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A86bU-0004cG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:23:24 -0400 Received: from twister.bcentralhost.com ([205.158.155.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A86bT-0004cC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:23:23 -0400 Received: from hossein (h24-82-118-47.vn.shawcable.net [24.82.118.47]) by twister.bcentralhost.com id TAA04191; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:23:20 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] Reply-To: From: "Hossein Malek" To: Organization: Veri@ Message-ID: <000001c38f85$7a1c1930$6501a8c0@Vancouver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38F4A.CDBD4130" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: [Asrg] Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam Protection Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:23:13 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38F4A.CDBD4130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Yakov for giving me the opportunity to introduce ourselves to the team. I am the CEO of Veri@ Inc. ( www.veriat.com), a Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam software company. We have developed a very unique approach to detecting Spam based on Real-Time "Forensic" DNA-like science. I would like to solicit your feedback on our product and see how you can help us expand in fighting this battle. Our unique multifaceted approach to solving Spam, which has been in production since early 2002, is based on a patent pending DNA-like sequencing technology which is languages independent, highly reliable, accurate, and extremely secure. Highlights include: - Platforms: WindowsR XP Home/XP Pro/2000 Pro/NT/Me/98 - Integrates with MicrosoftR Outlook,R Microsoft Outlook Express (Nov. '03) - Works with Outlook to filter out Spam email from HotmailR and MSNR Mail accounts. - Integrated Digital ID Certification (DIC) system - Low False Positive Rate (1 in 950) - Anti Spam/Virus Protection - Email Certification & Authentication - Self-Learning Content Filter Generation - 100% Confidential - Multilingual Content Filtering (13 languages) - Parental Control - Live update - checks for new protection updates - No user interference required - On-line product activation procedure to ensure authenticity - Free Windows-based download for trial users I invite you to download it and test it for yourself at www.veriat.com . Please send your feedbacks to me directly at hm@veriat.com . Yours truly, Hossein Malek hm@veriat.com ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38F4A.CDBD4130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Thanks Yakov  for=20 giving me the opportunity to introduce ourselves to the team. 

 

I am the CEO of Veri@ = Inc. (www.veriat.com),=20 a Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam software  company.  We have developed a = very unique=20 approach to detecting Spam based on Real-Time "Forensic"=20 DNA-like science.  I = would like=20 to solicit your feedback on our product and see how you can help us = expand in=20 fighting this battle.

 

Our unique = multifaceted approach=20 to solving Spam, which has been in production since early 2002, is based = on a=20 patent pending DNA-like sequencing technology which is languages = independent,=20 highly reliable, accurate, and extremely secure.  Highlights = include:

 

 - = Platforms: Windows®=20 XP Home/XP Pro/2000 Pro/NT/Me/98      =20
 - Integrates with Microsoft® = Outlook,® Microsoft=20 Outlook Express  = (Nov.=20 '03) 
 - Works with Outlook to filter out = Spam email=20 from Hotmail® and MSN® Mail accounts.
 - Integrated Digital ID Certification = (DIC)=20 system
 - Low False Positive Rate (1 in=20 950)
 - Anti Spam/Virus = Protection
 - Email Certification &=20 Authentication
 - Self-Learning Content Filter=20 Generation
 - 100% Confidential
 - Multilingual Content Filtering (13=20 languages)
 - Parental Control
 - Live update - checks for new = protection=20 updates
 -=20 No user interference required
 - On-line product activation procedure = to ensure=20 authenticity
 - Free Windows-based download for = trial=20 users
 

I invite you to = download it and=20 test it for yourself at www.veriat.com.   Please send your feedbacks to me directly at hm@veriat.com .

 

 

Yours = truly,

 

 

Hossein=20 Malek

hm@veriat.com

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38F4A.CDBD4130-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 10 19:52:33 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 TAA00532 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A873I-0006bQ-Ks for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9ANq83u025374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A873I-0006bB-Cs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:08 -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 TAA00521 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A873G-0004yY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A873G-0004yV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A873B-0006Xc-8y; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A872d-0006W1-29 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:51:27 -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 TAA00491 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A872a-0004xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:51:24 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A872a-0004xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:51:24 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9ANpLC7004533; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:51:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001c38f85$7a1c1930$6501a8c0@Vancouver.com> References: <000001c38f85$7a1c1930$6501a8c0@Vancouver.com> To: From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam Protection Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by vhost109.his.com id h9ANpLC7004533 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:50:41 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 4:23 PM -0700 2003/10/10, Hossein Malek wrote: > - Platforms: Windows=AE XP Home/XP Pro/2000 Pro/NT/Me/98 Are there any plans to support any other platforms? Perhaps be=20 available as a server module, which might be integrated into an MTA=20 or webmail server? --=20 Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--)= N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(= +++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(++= +) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 11 17:10:46 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 RAA13120 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8R0L-0005pb-C8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9BLAPtn022412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8R0L-0005pP-5z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:25 -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 RAA13113 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8R0I-0007lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8R0I-0007lT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8Qzy-0005nG-8p; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8Qza-0005mu-4x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:09:38 -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 RAA13110 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8QzX-0007lQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:09:35 -0400 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8QzX-0007lN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:09:35 -0400 Received: from [158.125.1.220] (helo=jamie.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A8QzW-0007jG-Bc; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:09:34 +0100 Received: from apache by jamie.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1A8QzW-0000Yb-6I; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:09:34 +0100 Received: from cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-shep1-3-0-cust201.nott.cable.ntl.com [213.107.116.201]) by student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk (IMP) with HTTP for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:09:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1065906574.3f88718e26cc2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Scenarios (was Re: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios) References: <1065740777.3f85e9e98be76@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> <3F86F421.2090500@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3F86F421.2090500@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 213.107.116.201 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1A8QzW-0007jG-Bc*HFdrTsvXq2w* X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:09:34 +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: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:09:34 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting Yakov Shafranovich : > Andrew Akehurst wrote: >> I've been away thinking about the spam issue for a while and >> have a suggestion which may help to analyse the likely impact >> of anti-spam proposals upon the way e-mail is currently used. >> >> What I suggest is to come up with a set of scenarios which >> together describe all of the different ways in which e-mail >> is used and can be referred to by number. > I believe that this can be a useful contribution to the > evaluation model. We need to take the requirements document > and the tech considerations documents, and make an evaluation > model based on them. Scenarios are already touched on a little > bit in the tech considerations document. OK, I will re-read the requirements and tech considerations documents and use them as inputs into my scenarios. The first draft should be ready in the next couple of days. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 11 21:26:53 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 VAA19571 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8V0B-0005zq-Ur for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9C1QVrv023051 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8V0B-0005zi-Ot for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:31 -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 VAA19562 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8V09-0001nC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8V08-0001n8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8Uzh-0005vc-Nc; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8Uza-0005vI-2I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:25:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19540 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8UzX-0001mu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:25:51 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8UzW-0001mc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:25:50 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4W34QTGM>; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'ASRG list'" , "'molson@roving.com'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Reputation systems - Project Lumos fee dback 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, 11 Oct 2003 21:10:14 -0400 I have a few questions and comments after reading through the Lumos whitepaper a few days ago. Overall, it seems to be well thought out. There are some questions left to be answered or at least presented more clearly. I'll run through some of the notes that I took as I read through it. Sec 3.2: What is the identity based upon? In phase 1, it seems to be on the IP address. In phase 2, it seems to be verified by a certificate. What attribute is the certificate verifying? Email address, hostname? Sec 3.2.3: " Recipients can therefore trust that the email from such an individual is extremely unlikely to be spam." What about spammers cycling through many accounts to send small volumes of spam from each? What about trojaned machines? Sec 4.2.1: "Email gateways may choose to handle incoming mail differently based on the level of security of the associated certification. A lower grade certification may, for instance, become subject to sending rate limits by mail gateways." We have to be careful here about creating a correlation between the size of the organization and trust of their messages. Sec 4.2.2.2: Perhaps there should be a category for messages with consent in the form of stamps. Sec 4.4.2.3: Processing unsubscribes in this manner works for spammers using ESPs. For direct spammers, unsubscribe montioring has to be done as well possibly at the recipient's gateway. FAQs : "What about free emailbox providers? A. In the simplest scenario, they may choose to rate limit and classify their users as anonymous. Others may offer Sender certification services. Providers that neither control sending through their mail server nor require authentication will tend towards poor performance ratings." How is this different from today where mail from many free emailbox providers receives a lower quality of service. I have some other thoughts about how we might be able to achieve some of the goals of Lumos with existing systems. I'll send that in a separate mail. > Liudvikas Bukys wrote: > > Excerpted from the press release > > http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/092903lumos.asp > > > > Details of Project Lumos technical architecture were > unveiled today in > > a white paper entitled "Project Lumos: A Solutions Blueprint for > > Solving the Spam Problem by Establishing Volume Email Sender > > Accountability." The white paper illustrates how the > registry can > > easily be implemented in conjunction with current spam fighting > > technology. The white paper also provides a blueprint for easy > > implementation of Project Lumos by ISPs. Project Lumos > will allow ISPs, > > without significant infrastructure changes, to quickly and > > inexpensively reject mail connections from spammers > without needing to > > accept, store and analyze the fraudulent mail. This > should dramatically > > reduce the amount of resources required to handle spam. > > > > ESPC is encouraging reviews, recommendations, and > comments from the > > industry. For information and to download the white paper, visit > > www.networkadvertising.org/espc/project_lumos.asp. > > > > About NAI's Email Service Provider Coalition: The Email Service > > Provider Coalition (ESPC) was formed in November 2002 > by the Network > > Advertising Initiative (NAI) to fight spam while protecting the > > delivery of legitimate email. The ESPC is comprised of > 37 members > > including aQuantive, Blue Dolphin, Digital Impact, DoubleClick, > > Experian, IMN, and Roving Software. The ESPC members > have recognized > > the need for strong spam solutions that ensure the delivery of > > legitimate email. To this end, the ESPC has created > several crucial > > sub-committees, including legislative and technical > committees, which > > have been very active in the war against spam. Our > flagship initiative, > > Project Lumos, is an industry proposal for a > registry-based solution to > > the spam problem. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Oct 11 21:39:31 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 VAA20033 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8VCR-0006iW-0d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9C1dA8r025814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8VCQ-0006iH-Ff for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:10 -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 VAA20030 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8VCN-0001y0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8VCN-0001xx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8VCG-0006en-TH; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:39:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8VBS-0006eJ-3c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:38:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20023 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8VBP-0001xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:38:07 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8VBO-0001xi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:38:06 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4W34QTHF>; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:22:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'ASRG list'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Reputation systems - A Poor Man's Anti -Spam Reputation System MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3905F.517C4F60" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Oct 2003 21:22:35 -0400 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3905F.517C4F60 Content-Type: text/plain A Poor Man's Anti-Spam Reputation System? After reading through the Lumos whitepaper, I am considering the delta between what the proposed archicture achieves and what can be accomplished with existing anti-spam systems. Here, I am thinking aloud on how to build a poor man's reputation system using these existing systems. It seems that we can achieve a reasonable amount of the goals presented in the Lumos paper with existing systems. The additional requirements can be met with some possibly minimal set of changes. 1.Reputation This table shows some of the performance criteria that are proposed in Lumos, how these criteria are monitored by existing system, and what identity is based upon in each of these systems. Performance Criteria Existing System Identity based upon: Abuse Complaint Count Complaint-based blacklists I.P. address or domain name Razor Message Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse (DCC) Message Adherence to Volume Email Standards/Guidelines Habeas Message Bonded Sender I.P. address Practices-based blacklists I.P. address or domain name Message Volume Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse (DCC) Message SenderBase I.P. address The performance criteria that are missing are: 1) hard bounce count and 2) duplicate unsubscribe count. These conditions can be detected at the outgoing gateway. At some threshold, these conditions will be considered an abuse complaint. At this point, it would be reported to one of the existing reputation systems such as a blacklist, razor, or DCC possibly with some count greater than one. 2. Identity The above reputation systems form identities based on either the IP address or the message signature. The message signature is equivalent to the 'campaign' as termed in Lumos. Additionally, domain level authentication can be achieved using RMX-like systems which form an association between the IP address and the domain name. Hostname or domain level authentication can be achieved using existing technologies such as SSL, PGP, or S/MIME. Every major email server supports SMTP over SSL. Leveraging this already deployed technology can achieve domain-based authentication. If this path is explored, do we need new certification/registration services? Can we not tie one of theses authenticated pieces of information to the combined reputation from the systems above? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3905F.517C4F60 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

A = Poor Man's=20 Anti-Spam Reputation System?

 

After reading=20 through the Lumos whitepaper, I am considering the delta between what = the=20 proposed archicture achieves and what can be accomplished with existing = anti-spam systems. Here, I am thinking aloud on how to build a poor = man's=20 reputation system using these existing systems. It seems that we can = achieve a=20 reasonable amount of the goals presented in the Lumos paper with = existing=20 systems. The additional requirements can be met with some possibly = minimal set=20 of changes.

 

1.Reputation=20

 

This table=20 shows some of the performance criteria that are proposed in Lumos, how = these=20 criteria are monitored by existing system, and what identity is based = upon in=20 each of these systems.

 

Performance=20 Criteria

Existing = System

Identity based=20 upon:

Abuse=20 Complaint Count

Complaint-based=20 blacklists

I.P.=20 address or domain name

Razor

Message

Distributed = Checksum=20 Clearinghouse (DCC)

Message

Adherence to = Volume Email=20 Standards/Guidelines

Habeas

Message

Bonded=20 Sender

I.P.=20 address

Practices-based=20 blacklists

I.P.=20 address or domain name

Message=20 Volume

Distributed = Checksum=20 Clearinghouse (DCC)

Message

SenderBase

I.P.=20 address

 

 

The performance = criteria=20 that are missing are: 1) hard bounce count and 2) duplicate unsubscribe = count.=20 These conditions can be detected at the outgoing gateway. At some = threshold,=20 these conditions will be considered an abuse complaint. At this point, = it would=20 be reported to one of the existing reputation systems such as a = blacklist,=20 razor, or DCC possibly with some count greater than one.

 

2.=20 Identity

 

The above=20 reputation systems form identities based on either the IP address or = the message=20 signature. The message signature is equivalent to the 'campaign' as = termed in=20 Lumos.

 

Additionally,=20 domain level authentication can be achieved using RMX-like systems = which form an=20 association between the IP address and the domain name.

 

Hostname or=20 domain level authentication can be achieved using existing technologies = such as=20 SSL, PGP, or S/MIME. Every major email server supports SMTP over SSL. = Leveraging=20 this already deployed technology can achieve domain-based = authentication.

 

If this path=20 is explored, do we need new certification/registration services? Can we = not tie=20 one of theses authenticated pieces of information to the combined = reputation=20 from the systems above?

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3905F.517C4F60-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 12 21:11:04 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 VAA04930 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8rER-0004dw-9D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9D1Ahlg017845 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8rER-0004dk-2c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:43 -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 VAA04916 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8rEO-0004gA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8rEO-0004g7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8rDn-0004Zt-2M; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:10:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A8rD4-0004ZA-U5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:09:18 -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 VAA04887 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8rD2-0004fT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:09:16 -0400 Received: from mw157.mail2world.com ([66.28.189.157] helo=mwsend02la.mail2world.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A8rD1-0004fQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:09:15 -0400 Received: from mwsend01la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.203.17]) by mwsend02la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:08:34 -0700 Received: from mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (unverified [10.1.202.11]) by mwsend01la.mail2world.com (Vircom SMTPRS 1.4.232) with ESMTP id for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:08:34 -0700 Received: from mwweb11la (unverified [10.1.11.10]) by mwsmtp03la.mail2world.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:08:34 -0700 Received: from [24.147.41.179] by aynacorp.com with HTTP; 10/12/2003 6:08:34 PM PST thread-index: AcORJoYiZhK4m3HeQgeDpXiNBY60oQ== Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios From: "Adonis El Fakih" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios Message-ID: <16a7e601c39126$8622d3c0$0a0b010a@mail2world.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_16A7E7_01C390EB.D9C3FBC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal 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: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:08:34 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_16A7E7_01C390EB.D9C3FBC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree on developing these cases, which we can use to test/evaluate any proposed system or combination of. <-----Original Message-----> From: Andrew Akehurst Sent: 10/10/2003 3:06:17 AM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios Hello everyone I've been away thinking about the spam issue for a while and have a suggestion which may help to analyse the likely impact of anti-spam proposals upon the way e-mail is currently used. What I suggest is to come up with a set of scenarios which together describe all of the different ways in which e-mail is used and can be referred to by number. For example: 1 Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob (bob@somewhere.org). Alice has previously e-mailed Bob from that address. 2 Alice has acquired a new e-mail address (alice@other.com). She has previously e-mailed Bob from her other address and is known to him: (a) Alice has not told Bob in advance of her new address: the first he finds out is when she sends him a message from the new address. (b) Alice knows her new e-mail address in advance and informs Bob of it either by e-mail from her existing address or by some out-of-band method. Bob might then, depending on his MUA and anti-spam software, be able to whitelist Alice's new address or establish prior consent for future e-mail. ... etc. These are just a few simple examples, but given a set of standard scenarios which describe how e-mail is used, we could easily analyse new proposals. One could simply say "Proposal X does not allow use case 3" or "Proposal Y requires a change to use case 5" Having a reasonably comprehensive set of examples would also encourage the authors of proposals to consider the impact of their suggestions on some of the less common ways in which e-mail is actually used. I am working on such a document for my degree project and would be happy to show it to the group if it would be of any help or interest. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________________________ Ayna.com the Arabic web starts right here. ------=_NextPart_000_16A7E7_01C390EB.D9C3FBC0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree on developing these cases, which we can use to test/evaluate any proposed system or combination of.



<-----Original Message----->
From: Andrew Akehurst
Sent: 10/10/2003 3:06:17 AM
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios

Hello everyone

I've been away thinking about the spam issue for a while and
have a suggestion which may help to analyse the likely impact
of anti-spam proposals upon the way e-mail is currently used.

What I suggest is to come up with a set of scenarios which
together describe all of the different ways in which e-mail
is used and can be referred to by number.

For example:

1 Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob
(bob@somewhere.org). Alice has previously e-mailed Bob
from that address.

2 Alice has acquired a new e-mail address (alice@other.com).
She has previously e-mailed Bob from her other address and
is known to him:

(a) Alice has not told Bob in advance of her new address: the
first he finds out is when she sends him a message from
the new address.

(b) Alice knows her new e-mail address in advance and informs
Bob of it either by e-mail from her existing address or by
some out-of-band method. Bob might then, depending on his
MUA and anti-spam software, be able to whitelist Alice's
new address or establish prior consent for future e-mail.

... etc.

These are just a few simple examples, but given a set of
standard scenarios which describe how e-mail is used, we
could easily analyse new proposals. One could simply say
"Proposal X does not allow use case 3" or "Proposal Y
requires a change to use case 5"

Having a reasonably comprehensive set of examples would
also encourage the authors of proposals to consider the
impact of their suggestions on some of the less common
ways in which e-mail is actually used.

I am working on such a document for my degree project
and would be happy to show it to the group if it would be
of any help or interest.

Thanks

Andrew

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

_______________________________________________________________
Ayna.com the Arabic web starts right here. ------=_NextPart_000_16A7E7_01C390EB.D9C3FBC0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 13 23:04:30 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 XAA11097 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9FTk-0007oH-U0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9E348Z0029915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9FTg-0007m8-4M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:04 -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 XAA11092 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9FTc-00053x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9FTc-00053t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:04:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9FSg-0007jN-8W; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9FS3-0007hO-NA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:02:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11080 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9FS0-00053Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:02:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9FRz-00053I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:02:19 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMQ001S58F0YC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:01:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8B6716.5060409@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Welcome to the ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:01:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Welcome to the mailing list of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This message is sent out to the mailing list at regular intervals in order to remind group members and inform newcomers about various aspects of the ASRG. In addition to this message, additional messages will be sent on a regular basis providing updates on work items and summarizing mailing list discussions. 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS. o There are still many open items on the research agenda not been taken care of. WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to take care of things, if you would like to help please post to the list or contact the chair off-list. o All suggestions on how to improve the group are welcome, please email us! 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ASRG. The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam. The purpose of the ASRG is to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively PROPOSE and EVALUATE solutions to the problem.The ASRG is part of the IRTF. The IRTF focuses on longer term research issues related to the Internet while the parallel organization, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), focuses on the shorter term issues of engineering and standards making. The operations of the IRTF and its research groups are discussed in detail in RFC 2014 (BCP 8). 2. INTERIM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_ipr_policy.htm). "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties." 3. MAILING LIST INFORMATION AND POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm). If you want to change your mailing list options, please visit the mailing list page at (https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). If the volume of messages is too high for you, you can choose to receive a daily digest of list messages instead of individual posts. All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work items outlined in the ASRG Research Agenda document. 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. NOTE: The moderator or chair may at their discretion moderate posting privileges of participants who ignore these guidelines. If they do so they will announce the fact to the list, with an explanation. 4. ASRG RESEARCH AGENDA (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm). The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. The Research Agenda lists different areas of research that the ASRG is pursuing. 5. ASRG WORK ITEM STATUS (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm). This lists the current work items showing owner and status. Each item also shows the associated item number from the research agenda. 6. MAIN ASRG PLAYERS. Paul Judge - ASRG Co-Chair Yakov Shafranovich - ASRG Co-Chair 7. IMPORTANT LINKS. ASRG charter - http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Official ASRG website - http://www.irtf.org/asrg Mailing list options - https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Mailing list archive - https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html Search engine for the archive - http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg IRTF website - http://www.irtf.org IETF website - http://www.ietf.org IAB website - http://www.iab.org RFC 2014 (BCP 8) - ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2014.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 14 00:44:37 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 AAA13296 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9H2f-0003iO-5I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9E4iHDk014274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9H2e-0003i9-U4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:16 -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 AAA13291 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9H2c-0005jn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9H2b-0005jk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9H2O-0003fE-UB; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9H20-0003ep-5o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:43:36 -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 AAA13254 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9H1x-0005ic-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:43:33 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9H1w-0005hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:43:32 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-18.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-14-18.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.18]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h9E4hNhL013752 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:43:23 -0500 (CDT) From: david nicol To: anti-spam research group Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1066106602.1371.53.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 Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS - a general approach to listing 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: 13 Oct 2003 23:43:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm worried that I haven't included enough context and background material. It's a proposal for a general way to compose a list of addresses using A records. For when the question is not "What address do I connect to?" but rather "Is this known IP a member of a particluar list with a well known name, associated with a particular domain?" http://www.tipjar.com/dnconsult/ASRG/draft-nicol-dns-addresslists-01-formatted.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 15 00:46:48 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 AAA16989 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dYK-0004Th-Jn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9F4kSt0017209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dYK-0004TU-GI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:28 -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 AAA16980 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dYH-0006Lf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dYH-0006Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:46:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dXt-0004RM-MG; Wed, 15 Oct 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 1A9dXi-0004R1-QO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:45:50 -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 AAA16973 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dXf-0006LY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:45:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dXf-0006LU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:45:47 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMS007TA7T8XJ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:43:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8CD08B.2000904@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 7. BCP - Auto-Responders - Response from IESG on Auto-response 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: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:43:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Sorry guys, but I was away since Friday and I started plowing through my email last night.] This is regarding the draft on BCP guidelines for auto responders available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt Below is a copy of the response from the IESG. As it stands now unless we will provide specific objections by the end of the months, this document will become a proposed standard. The BCP subgroups is dealing with this document, any specific can be posted to the main list or directed to Brad Knowles who is coordinating the BCP area. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Subject: re: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail - Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:43:51 -0700 (PDT) References: <3F84D10C.1070009@solidmatrix.com> > Hello, > I co-chair the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF > [www.irtf.org/asrg/]. We have a BCP area within the group which is > working on similar issues to the ones mentioned in this draft. I just re-read your charter, and I have to say I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim it covers the range of issues pertaining to correct operation of autoresponders this draft deals with. > I wanted > to ask the IESG if the move to "Proposed Standard" can be delayed while > we evaluate this draft in our group. First, I note that this document has been under discussion for about six months now, mostly on the ietf-822 list. I also note that this was pointed out on the ASRG list about six weeks back. I finally note that this document is currently in 4 week last call. Surely this provides sufficient time for interested parties, both in your group as well as outside, to review and comment on it. In any case, absent some more specific concern or concerns being given I see no reason to delay IESG consideration of the document once the last call has expired. Ned _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 15 00:57:29 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 AAA17211 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dif-0005Ee-PM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9F4v9Pc020118 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dif-0005EP-KP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:09 -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 AAA17207 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dic-0006RQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dic-0006RN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9diW-0005Br-FN; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9diV-0005Bf-Dh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:59 -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 AAA17204 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9diS-0006RK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9diS-0006RG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:56 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMS0097P8E368@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:56:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8CD379.4020604@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - "No soliciting" SMTP extension Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Oct 2003 00:56:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This proposal has been updated, see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-no-soliciting-01.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 15 00:59:23 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 AAA17265 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dkW-0005NG-20 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9F4x43Q020652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dkV-0005N1-Tr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:03 -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 AAA17261 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dkT-0006T2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dkS-0006Sz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dkT-0005Kz-D2; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9djw-0005KU-04 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:58:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17252 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9djt-0006SF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:58:25 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9djs-0006Rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:58:24 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMS009TU8GJ68@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:57:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8CD3D2.5040607@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Attachments - Related 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: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:57:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This is in reference to an earlier proposal suggesting to ban attachments without prior consent. An Internet draft has been submitted to the IETF with a proposal extension to allow for attachment notification. See: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murthy-attachment-notification-00.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 15 01:15:31 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 BAA17621 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9e03-0006BQ-Np for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9F5F70q023760 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9e03-0006B9-5l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:07 -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 BAA17588 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9e00-0006Ze-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dzz-0006Zb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dzx-00067Z-VU; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A9dz2-00066u-Ka for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:14:05 -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 BAA17565 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dyz-0006Z7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:14:01 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A9dyz-0006Y9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:14:01 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMS000NR96J66@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:13:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Forensic detection (Re: [Asrg] Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam Protection) In-reply-to: <000001c38f85$7a1c1930$6501a8c0@Vancouver.com> To: hm@veriat.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F8CD77A.7040203@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 References: <000001c38f85$7a1c1930$6501a8c0@Vancouver.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, 15 Oct 2003 01:13:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hossein Malek wrote: > > > Thanks Yakov for giving me the opportunity to introduce ourselves to > the team. > In the future, please follow the posting guidelines which were referenced in the welcome message and can be viewed below: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm I changed the subject to comply. > > > I am the CEO of Veri@ Inc. (www.veriat.com ), a > Real-Time "Forensic" Anti-Spam software company. We have developed a > /very/ unique approach to detecting Spam based on Real-Time "Forensic" > DNA-like science. I would like to solicit your feedback on our product > and see how you can help us expand in fighting this battle. > ... Aside from seeking feedback - what can you provide to the Internet as whole to reduce the problem? What possible things can you help the ASRG with? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 16 07:55:23 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 HAA29563 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA6ic-0001LN-14 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9GBt1kx005161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA6ib-0001LA-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:01 -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 HAA29552 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA6ia-0003s5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA6ia-0003s1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:55:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AA6gf-0001GI-El; Thu, 16 Oct 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 1AA6gN-0001Fu-Ta for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:52:43 -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 HAA29482 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA6gN-0003qV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:52:43 -0400 Received: from bay2-f76.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.76] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AA6gM-0003qS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:52:42 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:52:10 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:52:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Technical and Legal approaches (was Re: [Asrg] Technical soluti Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 11:52:10.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE937D30:01C393DB] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:52:10 -0200 Jonathan Morton wrote: >>IMHO, it is kind of stupid for a spammer to spam members of an anti-spam >>group. Kind of like sticking your head into the lion's den. > >I understand someone figured out the vast majority of spam comes from web >scrapers - these don't know what kind of group the addresses are coming >from. Still, it's kind of amusing to see just how poorly targetted they can >be. :o) Jonathan, I am not sure I agree with the above. Try to look back to when the real spam expansion was in your organization. If you find it as around Jan-April 2002, we have a complete different culprit. When I got an explosion both at work as in my private mailboxes in feb 2002 I looked around and found that www.addresses.com had made some change, that included a just finished sweep of both Usenet and web-pages (also archives) for any valid e-mail addresses. I found all mine in there, from late 80-ies up until I stopped using them on Usenet, webpages or logging on to sites like NYTimes. And for some months the site was searchable with wildcard, yu could write *ford.com, *citibank.com or *.co.uk and got an list output, nicely processable for future use. See if the receiving addresses you see in the spams exists at addresses.com. If so, you have the most probable source of those addresses. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 01:00:21 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 BAA06802 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAMiV-0005fQ-CV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9H4xxow021783 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAMiV-0005fG-7t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:59 -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 AAA06768 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAMiS-0006Vo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAMiS-0006Vl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:59:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAMgb-0005Qd-KV; Fri, 17 Oct 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 1AAMgA-0005QQ-By for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:57:34 -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 AAA06656 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAMg7-0006Tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:57:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAMg7-0006Tg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:57:31 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HMV00K72XONGO@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:55:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F8F7645.8030801@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Volunteers Needed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:55:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, We need volunteers to help summarize the list. Please contact the chairs off-list or reply on-list. P.S. Any other ASRG suggestions are always welcome! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 17:46:58 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 RAA25723 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAcQf-0004wg-75 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9HLkbVe019006 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAcQe-0004wT-Vu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:37 -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 RAA25694 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAcQX-0001yB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAcQX-0001y7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAcQ4-0004t1-Jt; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAVXT-0007q2-AY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:25:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04400 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVXR-0003tt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:25:09 -0400 Received: from relay1.softcomca.com ([168.144.1.67]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAVXP-0003t7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:25:07 -0400 Received: from M2W048.mail2web.com ([168.144.251.155]) by relay1.softcomca.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:30 -0400 Message-ID: <184670-2200310517142430360@M2W048.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: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Volunteers Needed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC2B74.89D1CCC0" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2003 14:24:30.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[60B09900:01C394BA] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:24:30 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BC2B74.89D1CCC0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov and list members; The latest 'requirements' draft is available at the following and attached= to this message=2E Thank you for all of the suggestions=2E Please review= (re-review) the latest draft and either suggest additional comments=2E Thanks again to all who provided comments=2E -e http://www=2Einfobro=2Ecom/anon-FTP/infoSource/IRTF/ASRG/draft-irtf-asrg-r= equire ments-00=2Etxt Original Message: ----------------- From: Yakov Shafranovich research@solidmatrix=2Ecom Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:55:33 -0400 To: asrg@ietf=2Eorg Subject: [Asrg] 0=2E General - Volunteers Needed Hi, We need volunteers to help summarize the list=2E Please contact the chairs= =20 off-list or reply on-list=2E P=2ES=2E Any other ASRG suggestions are always welcome! _______________________________________________ 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 ------=_NextPart_000_01BC2B74.89D1CCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt" Content-Description: draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QW50aSBTcGFtIFJlc2VhcmNoIEdyb3VwICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIEUuIFdpbGxpYW1zIA0KSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgSW5mb3JtYXRpb24gQnJva2VycywgSW5jIA0KRXhwaXJlczogQXByaWwgMiwgMjAw NCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAyLCAyMDAzDQoNCg0K DQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQW50aSBTcGFtIFJlc2VhcmNoIEdyb3VwIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cw0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pcnRmLWFzcmctcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLXh4DQoNClN0YXR1 cyBvZiB0aGlzIE1lbW8NCiANCiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGFuIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IGFu ZCBpcyBpbiBmdWxsIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNlIHdpdGgNCiBhbGwgcHJvdmlzaW9ucyBvZiBTZWN0aW9u IDEwIG9mIFJGQzIwMjYuDQogDQogSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGFyZSB3b3JraW5nIGRvY3VtZW50 cyBvZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcNCiBUYXNrIEZvcmNlIChJRVRGKSwgaXRzIGFy ZWFzLCBhbmQgaXRzIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzLiAgTm90ZSB0aGF0DQogb3RoZXIgZ3JvdXBzIG1h eSBhbHNvIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgd29ya2luZyBkb2N1bWVudHMgYXMNCiBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMu DQogDQogSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGFyZSBkcmFmdCBkb2N1bWVudHMgdmFsaWQgZm9yIGEgbWF4 aW11bSBvZiBzaXgNCiBtb250aHMgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1cGRhdGVkLCByZXBsYWNlZCwgb3Igb2Jz b2xldGVkIGJ5IG90aGVyDQogZG9jdW1lbnRzIGF0IGFueSB0aW1lLiAgSXQgaXMgaW5hcHByb3By aWF0ZSB0byB1c2UgSW50ZXJuZXQtDQogRHJhZnRzIGFzIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBtYXRlcmlhbCBvciB0 byBjaXRlIHRoZW0gb3RoZXIgdGhhbiBhcw0KICJ3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzLiINCiANCiBUaGUg bGlzdCBvZiBjdXJyZW50IEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBjYW4gYmUgYWNjZXNzZWQgYXQNCiBodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lldGYvMWlkLWFic3RyYWN0cy50eHQuDQogDQogVGhlIGxpc3Qgb2Yg SW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgU2hhZG93IERpcmVjdG9yaWVzIGNhbiBiZSBhY2Nlc3NlZA0KIGF0IGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvc2hhZG93Lmh0bWwuDQogDQogVGhpcyBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCB3 aWxsIGV4cGlyZSBvbiBBcHJpbCAwMiwgMjAwNC4NCg0KQ29weXJpZ2h0IE5vdGljZQ0KIA0KIENv cHlyaWdodCAoQykgVGhlIEludGVybmV0IFNvY2lldHkgKDIwMDMpLiAgQWxsIFJpZ2h0cw0KIFJl c2VydmVkLg0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdA0KIA0KIFRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHRoZSBBbnRpIFNwYW0gUmVz ZWFyY2ggR3JvdXAgKEFTUkcpIGlzIHRvDQogaW52ZXN0aWdhdGUgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gb2YgdW53 YW50ZWQgZW1haWwgbWVzc2FnZXMgbG9vc2VseSANCiByZWZlcnJlZCB0byBhcyBzcGFtIGFzIGEg bGFyZ2Utc2NhbGUgbmV0d29yayBwcm9ibGVtLA0KIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gYW5k IGNvbGxlY3RpdmVseSBwcm9wb3NlIGFuZCBldmFsdWF0ZQ0KIHNvbHV0aW9ucyB0byB0aGUgcHJv YmxlbS4gIFRoaXMgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIHRoZQ0KIGhpZ2gtbGV2ZWwgcmVx dWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBwcm9wb3NlZCBtZXRob2RvbG9naWVzIGZvcg0KIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgdGhl IHByb2JsZW0sIGluY2x1ZGluZyB0aGUgcmF0aW9uYWxlIGZvciB0aG9zZQ0KIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50 cyB3aGVyZSBjbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uIGlzIG5lZWRlZC4gIFNjZW5hcmlvcyBhcmUgdXNlZA0KIHRv IGlsbHVzdHJhdGUgc29tZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMuDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0 ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9iZXIgIDIsIDIwMDMNCg0KDQoN ClRhYmxlIG9mIENvbnRlbnRzDQoNCiAxLiBJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNA0KIDEuMSBDb252ZW50aW9ucyBVc2VkIEluIFRo aXMgRG9jdW1lbnQgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA0DQogMS4yIFJlYXNvbnMgZm9yIHRo ZSBBU1JHIFByb3Bvc2FsIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDQNCiAxLjMgVGVybWlu b2xvZ3kgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNQ0KIDEu My4xIEFudGktc3BhbSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICA1DQogMS4zLjIgQnVsayBFLW1haWwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIDUNCiAxLjMuMyBDYWxsZXIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNQ0KIDEuMy40IENhbGxiYWNrICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA1DQogMS4zLjUgQ2hhbGxlbmdlL1Jlc3BvbnNlIFN5 c3RlbSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDUNCiAxLjMuNiBDb25zZW50ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNQ0KIDEuMy43IENvbnNl bnQgQmFzZWQgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbnMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA1DQogMS4z LjggQ29tbWVyY2lhbCBFLW1haWwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IDYNCiAxLjMuOSBEb21haW4gTmFtZSBTeXN0ZW0gKEROUykgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgNg0KIDEuMy4xMCBFLW1haWwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA2DQogMS4zLjExIEZhbHNlIE5lZ2F0aXZlICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDYNCiAxLjMuMTIgRmFsc2UgUG9zaXRpdmUgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNg0KIDEuMy4xMyBMZWdpdGltYXRlIE1l c3NhZ2luZyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA2DQogMS4zLjE0IE1lc3Nh Z2UgQ29udGVudCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDYNCiAxLjMu MTUgTWVzc2FnZSBFbnZlbG9wZSBGb3JnZXJ5ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg Ng0KIDEuMy4xNiBNZXNzYWdlIEVudmVsb3BlIFByb3RvY29sICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICA2DQogMS4zLjE3IE1lc3NhZ2UgSGVhZGVyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDcNCiAxLjMuMTggTWVzc2FnZSBIZWFkZXIgRm9yZ2VyeSAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNw0KIDEuMy4xOSBNZXNzYWdlIE9yaWdpbmF0aW9uICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA3DQogMS4zLjIwIE1lc3NhZ2UgT3JpZ2lu YXRvciAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDcNCiAxLjMuMjEgTWVzc2Fn ZSBUcmFuc2ZlciBBZ2VudCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNw0KIDEuMy4y MiBNZXNzYWdlIFRyYW5zZmVyIFN5c3RlbSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA3 DQogMS4zLjIzIE1lc3NhZ2UgVXNlciBBZ2VudCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDcNCiAxLjMuMjQgTWVzc2FnZSBTdG9yZS9NZXNzYWdlIFN0b3JhZ2UgQWdlbnQgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOA0KIDEuMy4yNSBOb24gQ29uc2VudCBCYXNlZCBDb21tdW5pY2F0aW9u IChzcGFtKSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA4DQogMS4zLjI2IE9wZW4gUmVsYXkgTVRBICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDgNCiAxLjMuMjcgT3B0LUluICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOA0KIDEuMy4yOCBPcHQtT3V0 ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA4DQogMS4zLjI5 IFJlY2lwaWVudC9SZWNlaXZlciAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDgN CiAxLjMuMzAgU2VuZGVyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgOA0KIDEuMy4zMSBTcGFtbWVyICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICA4DQogMS4zLjMyIFJlbGF5IE1UQSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDgNCiAxLjMuMzMgU2VsZWN0aXZlIFJlbGF5IE1UQSAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOQ0KIDEuMy4zNCBSZXZlcnNlIEROUyAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA5DQogMS4zLjM1IFRyYW5zcG9y dCBQcm90b2NvbCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDkNCiAxLjMuMzYg VW5zb2xpY2l0ZWQgQnVsayBFLU1haWwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOQ0K IDEuMy4zNyBVbnNvbGljaXRlZCBDb21tZXJjaWFsIEUtTWFpbCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICA5DQogMS40IEFudGkgU3BhbSBUZWNobmljYWwgRnJhbWV3b3JrICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDkNCiAxLjUgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIG9mIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMA0KIDIuIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEwDQogMi4xIFVzZSBvZiBleGlzdGluZyB0ZWNo bm9sb2dpZXMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTANCiAyLjEuMSBSYXRpb25hbGU6 ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMA0KIDIuMiBJbmV4 cGVuc2l2ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEwDQog Mi4yLjEgUmF0aW9uYWw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgMTANCg0KDQoNCldpbGxpYW1zLCBFLiAgICAgICAgICBFeHBpcmVzOiAgIEFwcmlsIDIsIDIw MDMgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAyXSANCgxJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVp cmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAyLCAyMDAzDQoNCg0KIDIuMyBFYXNlIG9mIFVzZSAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDExDQogMi4zLjEgUmF0 aW9uYWxlOiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTENCiAy LjQgRWFzZSBvZiBEZXBsb3ltZW50ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAxMQ0KIDIuNC4xIFJhdGlvbmFsOiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIDExDQogMi41IEludGVyb3BlcmFibGUgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTENCiAyLjUuMSBSYXRpb25hbDogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMQ0KIDIuNiBIaWdobHkgRWZmZWN0aXZlICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEyDQogMi42LjEgUmF0aW9uYWxlOiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTINCiAyLjcgUGVyc2lz dGVudGx5IEVmZmVjdGl2ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMg0KIDIu Ny4xIFJhdGlvbmFsOiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IDEyDQogMi44IERvZXNuJ3QgSW50ZXJmZXJlIFdpdGggVGhlIERlbGl2ZXJ5IE9mIExlZ2l0aW1h dGUgTWFpbCAgMTINCiAyLjguMSBSYXRpb25hbGU6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMg0KIDIuOSBHb2xhIE9yaWVudGVkIFNvbHV0aW9uICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEyDQogMi45LjEgUmF0aW9uYWxlOiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTINCiAyLjEwIFRlY2huaWNhbCBSYXRo ZXIgVGhhbiBMZWdpc2xhdGl2ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxMw0KIDIuMTAuMSBSYXRp b25hbGU6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEzDQogMi4x MSBDb21wbGV4aXR5ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg MTMNCiAyLjExLjEgUmF0aW9uYWxlOiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAxMw0KIDIuMTIgSW1wbGVtZW50IGFiaWxpdHkgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDEzDQogMi4xMi4xIFJhdGlvbmFsZTogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTMNCiAyLjEzIE90aGVyIFBsYXRmb3JtcyAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxNA0KIDIuMTMuMSBSYXRpb25hbGU6ICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDE0DQogMi4xNCBBY2NvdW50 YWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgQW5vbnltaXR5ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTQNCiAyLjE0 LjEgUmF0aW9uYWxlOiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAx NA0KIDMuIFNlY3VyaXR5IENvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDE0DQogSW5mb3JtYXRpdmUgUmVmZXJlbmNlcyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTUNCiBBdXRob3JzJyBBZGRyZXNzZXMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAxNQ0KIEZ1bGwgQ29weXJpZ2h0IFN0YXRlbWVudCAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDE2DQogQWNrbm93bGVkZ2VtZW50cyAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTYNCg0KIA0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCldpbGxpYW1zLCBFLiAgICAgICAg ICBFeHBpcmVzOiAgIEFwcmlsIDIsIDIwMDMgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAzXSANCgxJbnRlcm5l dC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAyLCAyMDAz DQoNCg0KMS4gIEludHJvZHVjdGlvbg0KIA0KIFRoaXMgaXMgYW4gdW5vcmRlcmVkIHNpbXBsZSBs aXN0aW5nIG9mIHBvc3NpYmxlIGNyaXRlcmlhIGZvcg0KIEFTUkcgdG8gZXZhbHVhdGUgYW50aS1z cGFtIHNvbHV0aW9ucy4NCiANCiBOT1RFOiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCB0byBl dm9sdmUsIGJhc2VkIG9uIGNvbW1lbnRzIA0KIGZyb20gdGhlIEFudGktU3BhbSBSZXNlYXJjaCBH cm91cCAoQVNSRykgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0LiAgSXQgaXMNCiBjZXJ0YWluIHRoYXQgdGhlIGN1cnJl bnQgZHJhZnQgaXMgaW5jb21wbGV0ZSBhbmQgZW50aXJlbHkgcG9zc2libGUNCiB0aGF0IGl0IGlz IGluYWNjdXJhdGUuICBIZW5jZSBjb21tZW50cyBhcmUgZWFnZXJseSBzb3VnaHQsIHByZWZlcmFi bHkNCiBpbiB0aGUgZm9ybSBvZiBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgdGV4dCBjaGFuZ2VzLCBhbmQgcHJlZmVyYWJs eSBvbiB0aGUgQVNSRyANCiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QuICBhdCA8bWFpbHRvOmFzcmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+ DQoNCiBUaGUgQVNSRyBzaG91bGQgc29saWNpdCBib3RoIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgY3JpdGVyaWEgYW5k IGFsc28NCiBhcmd1bWVudGF0aW9uL2FuYWx5c2lzIGFzIHRvIHdoaWNoIGNyaXRlcmlhIGFyZSBh cHByb3ByaWF0ZSBhbmQNCiBpbXBvcnRhbnQgYW5kIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBub3QuDQoNCjEuMSAgQ29u dmVudGlvbnMgVXNlZCBJbiBUaGlzIERvY3VtZW50DQogDQogVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYW4gSUVURiBz dGFuZGFyZHMgdHJhY2sgZG9jdW1lbnRbMV0uICBBcyBpdCBpcyBub3QNCiBzdWNoIGEgZG9jdW1l bnQgdGhlIGtleXdvcmRzIE1VU1QsIE1VU1QgTk9ULCBTSE9VTEQsIGFuZCBNQVkNCiBhcmUgTk9U IGFzIGluIFsyXSwgYnV0IHJhdGhlcjoNCiAgDQogIG8gIE1VU1Q6IFRoaXMgd29yZCwgb3IgdGhl IHRlcm1zICJSRVFVSVJFRCIgb3IgIlNIQUxMIiwgbWVhbnMNCiAgICAgdGhhdCB0aGUgZGVzY3Jp YmVkIGJlaGF2aW9yIG9yIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljIGlzIGFuIGFic29sdXRlDQogICAgIHJlcXVp cmVtZW50IGZvciBhIHByb3Bvc2VkIEFTUkcgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbi4NCiAgbyAgTVVTVCBOT1Q6 IFRoaXMgcGhyYXNlLCBvciB0aGUgcGhyYXNlICJTSEFMTCBOT1QiLCBtZWFucyB0aGF0DQogICAg IHRoZSBkZXNjcmliZWQgYmVoYXZpb3Igb3IgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWMgaXMgYW4gYWJzb2x1dGUN CiAgICAgcHJvaGliaXRpb24gb2YgYSBwcm9wb3NlZCBBU1JHIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uDQogIG8g IFNIT1VMRDogVGhpcyB3b3JkLCBvciB0aGUgYWRqZWN0aXZlICJSRUNPTU1FTkRFRCIsIG1lYW5z DQogICAgIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgbWF5IGV4aXN0IHZhbGlkIHJlYXNvbnMgaW4gcGFydGljdWxhciBj aXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzDQogICAgIGZvciBhIHByb3Bvc2VkIEFTUkcgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiB0byBp Z25vcmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGJlaGF2aW9yIG9yDQogICAgIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcy4NCiAgbyAg TUFZOiBUaGlzIHdvcmQsIG9yIHRoZSBhZGplY3RpdmUgIk9QVElPTkFMIiwgbWVhbnMgdGhhdA0K ICAgICBkZXNjcmliZWQgYmVoYXZpb3Igb3IgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWNzIGFyZSB0cnVseSBvcHRp b25hbCBmb3IgYQ0KICAgICBwcm9wb3NlZCBBU1JHIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uICBPbmUgcHJvcG9z ZWQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBtYXkNCiAgICAgY2hvb3NlIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIGRlc2NyaWJl ZCBiZWhhdmlvciBvciBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpc3RpYyB3aGlsZQ0KICAgICBhbm90aGVyIHByb3Bvc2Vk IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gbWF5IG9taXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgYmVoYXZpb3Igb3INCiAgICAgY2hhcmFj dGVyaXN0aWMuDQoNCjEuMiAgUmVhc29ucyBmb3IgdGhlIEFTUkcgUHJvcG9zYWwgUmVxdWlyZW1l bnRzDQogDQogVGhlIHJlYXNvbnMgZm9yIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IHRoaXMgc2V0IG9mIHJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cyBmb3IgQVNSRw0KIHByb3Bvc2FscyBhcmUgZGVyaXZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBBU1JHIGNoYXJ0 ZXIuICBUaGUgY2hhcnRlcg0KIHN0YXRlczoNCg0KICAgICAiVGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIEFT UkcgaXMgdG8gdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbQ0KICAgICBhbmQgY29sbGVjdGl2ZWx5IHBy b3Bvc2UgYW5kIGV2YWx1YXRlIHNvbHV0aW9ucyB0byB0aGUNCiAgICAgcHJvYmxlbS4gV2hpbGUg c29tZSB0ZWNobmlxdWVzIGZvY3VzIG9uIGxvY2FsIHRleHQNCiAgICAgY2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24g YXBwcm9hY2hlcywgbWFueSB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBhbmQNCiAgICAgZXZvbHZpbmcgdGVjaG5pcXVl cyBpbmNsdWRlIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgdGhhdCBpbnZvbHZlIG5ldw0KICAgICBuZXR3b3JrIGFyY2hp dGVjdHVyZXMgb3IgY2hhbmdlcyB0byB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcNCiAgICAgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIGFu ZCBwcm90b2NvbHMuDQogICAgIA0KICAgICBBU1JHIHdpbGwgaW52ZXN0aWdhdGUgdGhlIHNwYW0g cHJvYmxlbSBhcyBhIGxhcmdlLXNjYWxlDQogICAgIG5ldHdvcmsgcHJvYmxlbS4gVGhlIEFTUkcg d2lsbCBiZWdpbiBpdHMgd29yayBieQ0KICAgICBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGEgdGF4b25vbXkgb2YgdGhl IHByb2JsZW0gYW5kIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZA0KICAgICBzb2x1dGlvbnMuIFRoaXMgdGF4b25vbXkg c2hvdWxkIGludm9sdmUgY2FzdGluZyB0aGUNCiAgICAgc3BhbSBwcm9ibGVtIGludG8gZGlmZmVy ZW50IHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlcywgc3VjaCBhcw0KICAgICBleGFtaW5pbmcgdGhlIHNpbWlsYXJpdGll cyBiZXR3ZWVuIHNwYW0gYW5kIGRlbmlhbC1vZi0NCg0KDQpXaWxsaWFtcywgRS4gICAgICAgICAg RXhwaXJlczogICBBcHJpbCAyLCAyMDAzICAgICAgICAgICAgW1BhZ2UgNF0gDQoMSW50ZXJuZXQt RHJhZnQgICAgICAgICAgICBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgICAgICAgICAgT2N0b2JlciAgMiwgMjAwMw0K ICAgICANCg0KICAgICBzZXJ2aWNlOyBzcGFtIGFuZCBpbnRydXNpb24gZGV0ZWN0aW9uL3ByZXZl bnRpb247IGFuZA0KICAgICBzcGFtIGFuZCBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiwgYXV0aG9yaXphdGlvbiwg YW5kIGFjY291bnRpbmcuDQogICAgIEFTUkcgd2lsbCBjb25zaWRlciB0aGUgaXNzdWVzIG9mIGRl cGxveW1lbnQgZm9yDQogICAgIHByb3Bvc2VkIHNvbHV0aW9ucywgZW1waGFzaXppbmcgdGhlIGlu dmVzdGlnYXRpb24gb2YNCiAgICAgbWV0aG9kcyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgYSByZWFsaXN0aWMgY2hhbmNl IG9mIHdpZGUtc2NhbGUNCiAgICAgZGVwbG95bWVudC4NCiAgICAgDQogICAgIFRoZSB3b3JrIG9m IHRoZSBBU1JHIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBpbmNsdWRlIGludmVzdGlnYXRpbmcNCiAgICAgdGVjaG5pcXVl cyB0byBldmFsdWF0ZSB0aGUgdXNlZnVsbmVzcyBhbmQgY29zdCBvZg0KICAgICBwcm9wb3NlZCBz b2x1dGlvbnMuIFVzZWZ1bG5lc3MgaXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGJ5IHRoZQ0KICAgICBlZmZlY3RpdmVu ZXNzLCBhY2N1cmFjeSwgYW5kIGluY2VudGl2ZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgb2YgdGhlDQogICAgIHN5c3Rl bS4gVGhlIGNvc3Qgb2YgdGhlIHN5c3RlbSByZWZlcnMgdG8gdGhlIGJ1cmRlbg0KICAgICBpbXBv c2VkIG9uIHVzZXJzIGFuZCBvcGVyYXRvcnMgb2YgdGhlIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zDQogICAgIHN5 c3RlbS4gVGhlc2UgY29zdHMgaW5jbHVkZSBhbnkgY2hhbmdlcyB0byB0aGUgbm9ybWFsDQogICAg IHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgc3lzdGVtIG9yIGFjdHVhbCBjaGFuZ2VzIGluIHRoZSBtb25ldGFyeQ0KICAg ICBjb3N0cyBvZiB1c2luZyB0aGUgc3lzdGVtLiBUaGUgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0ZQ0K ICAgICBldmFsdWF0aW9uIGluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlcyBzdWNoIGFzIHB1YmxpYyB0cmFjZSBkYXRh DQogICAgIGFyY2hpdmVzIGFuZCByZXNlYXJjaCB0b29scyB0byBtZWFzdXJlIGFuZCBhbmFseXpl IHRoZQ0KICAgICBwcm9ibGVtIGFuZCB0aGUgc29sdXRpb25zLg0KICAgICANCiAgICAgQVNSRyB3 aWxsIG5vdCBwdXJzdWUgcmVzZWFyY2ggaW50byBsZWdhbCBpc3N1ZXMgb2YNCiAgICAgc3BhbSwg b3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgZXh0ZW50IHRvIHdoaWNoIHRoZXNlIGlzc3Vlcw0KICAgICBhZmZlY3Qs IHN1cHBvcnQsIG9yIGNvbnN0cmFpbiB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4iDQogDQogVGhpcyBzY29wZSBw cm92aWRlcyB0aGUgYmFzaXMgZnJhbWV3b3JrIGZvciB0aGUgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgYW5kDQogZXZh bHVhdGlvbiBvZiBwcm9wb3NhbHMuICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHByb3ZpZGVzIHRoZSBjb3JlDQog cmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFwcGxpZWQgYnkgdGhlIHJlc2VhcmNoIGdyb3VwIGZvciBldmFsdWF0aW9u IG9mDQogQVNSRyBwcm9wb3NhbHMuDQoNCjEuMyAgVGVybWlub2xvZ3kNCiANCiBJbiBhbiBlZmZv cnQgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBhIGNvbW1vbiByZWZlcmVuY2UgcG9pbnQgZm9yIHRoZQ0KIGV2YWx1YXRp b24gb2YgcHJvcG9zYWxzIGFuZCBzb2x1dGlvbnMgd2UgaGF2ZSBjb21waWxlZCB0aGUNCiBmb2xs b3dpbmcgbGlzdCBvZiBjb21tb25seSB1c2VkIHRlcm1zIHJlbGF0aW5nIHRvIGFudGktW3NwYW1d DQogdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQgZWZmb3J0cy4gIFRoZSB0ZXJtcyBhcmUgcHJlc2VudGVkIGluIHRo ZQ0KIHNlY3Rpb25zIHRoYXQgZm9sbG93IGluIGFscGhhYmV0aWNhbCBvcmRlci4gIEluIGFkZGl0 aW9uIHNvbWUNCiBzcGVjaWZpYyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMvZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgdGVjaG5pcXVlcyBk ZXNjcmliZWQgYXJlDQogcHJlc2VudGVkIGluIEFwcGVuZGl4IFtUQkRdLg0KDQoxLjMuMSAgICAg QW50aS1zcGFtIChSZXF1aXJlcyBjb25zZW5zdXMgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiAtIFJDRCkNCg0KMS4zLjIg ICAgIEJ1bGsgRS1tYWlsIChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuMy4zICAgICBDYWxsZXIgKFJDRCkNCg0KMS4zLjQg ICAgIENhbGxiYWNrIChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuMy41ICAgICBDaGFsbGVuZ2UvUmVzcG9uc2UgU3lzdGVt IChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuMy42ICAgICBDb25zZW50IChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuMy43ICAgICBDb25zZW50IEJh c2VkIENvbW11bmljYXRpb25zIChSQ0QpDQoNCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMsIEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGly ZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAgICAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDVdIA0KDEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0 ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9iZXIgIDIsIDIwMDMNCg0KDQox LjMuOCAgICAgQ29tbWVyY2lhbCBFLW1haWwgKFJDRCkNCg0KMS4zLjkgICAgIERvbWFpbiBOYW1l IFN5c3RlbSAoRE5TKQ0KDQogQSBzeXN0ZW0gZm9yIGFzc29jaWF0aW5nIGNoYXJhY3RlciBiYXNl ZCBuYW1lcyB3aXRoIA0KIG51bWVyaWNhbGx5IGJhc2VkIGludGVybmV0IHByb3RvY29sIGFkZHJl c3NlcyBbM10uICBUaGUgRE5TIHdvcmtzDQogd2l0aCBpbiB0aGUgZnJhbWV3b3JrIG9mIGludGVy bmV0d29yayBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyB0byBwcm92aWRlDQogbmFtZXMgKGNhbGxlZCBkb21haW4g bmFtZXMpIHRvIHpvbmVzIG9mIGF1dGhvcml0eS4gIFRoZSBETlMgaXMgYQ0KIGZhY2lsaXR5IGZv ciBtYXBwaW5nIHVzZXIgZnJpZW5kbHkgbmFtZXMgdG8gdHJhbnNhY3Rpb25hbCBlbmQgDQogcG9p bnQgaWRlbnRpZmllcnMgKElQIGFkZHJlc3NlcykuICBUaGUgRE5TIGlzIGhlYXZpbHkgdXRpbGl6 ZWQgYnkNCiBtZXNzYWdpbmcgc3lzdGVtcyB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgZW5kIHBvaW50IGlkZW50aWZp ZXJzIGZvciBtZXNzYWdlDQogcmVsYXlzIGFuZCBtZXNzYWdlIHRlcm1pbmF0aW9uIHBvaW50c1s4 XS4gIEEgZnVsbCBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mDQogdGhlIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgRE5TIGlzIG91 dHNpZGUgb2YgdGhlIHNjb3BlIG9mIHRoaXMNCiBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KMS4zLjEwICAgIEUtbWFp bA0KDQogVGhlIHRlcm0gY29tbW9ubHkgdXNlZCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSBhIHN5c3RlbSBvZiBtZXNz YWdpbmcgYmFzZWQNCiBpbiBhIG5ldHdvcmsgb2YgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgc3lzdGVtcyBhbmQgYWN0 ZWQgb24gYnkgY29tcHV0ZXINCiBzb2Z0d2FyZSBhbmQgaHVtYW4gYWN0b3JzLiAgRS1tYWlsIGlz IGEgbWV0aG9kIG9mIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zDQogdXNlZCBpbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBmb3IgbXVsdGlw bGUgcHVycG9zZXMgdG9vIG51bWVyb3VzIHRvIGxpc3QgaW4NCiB0aGlzIGRlZmluaXRpb24uDQoN CjEuMy4xMSAgICBGYWxzZSBOZWdhdGl2ZQ0KDQogSW4gdGhlIGNvbnRleHQgb2YgdGhpcyBwYXBl ciwgYSBmYWxzZSBuZWdhdGl2ZSBpcyBhcyBkZWZpbmVkDQogaW4gWzddIGFuZCBpcyBkZXRlcm1p bmVkIGFmdGVyIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBmaWx0ZXIgdGVzdC4gQSBGYWxzZQ0KIE5lZ2F0aXZlIChGTikg aXMgd2hlcmUgYSAiTWVzc2FnZSBmYWlscyB0byBtYXRjaCB0aGUgdGVzdA0KIGNyaXRlcmlhLCBi dXQgdGhlIGNyaXRlcmlhIGFyZSBub3Qgc3VmZmljaWVudGx5IHN0cm9uZy4iDQoNCjEuMy4xMiAg ICBGYWxzZSBQb3NpdGl2ZQ0KDQogSW4gdGhlIGNvbnRleHQgb2YgdGhpcyBwYXBlciwgYSBmYWxz ZSBwb3NpdGl2ZSBpcyBhcyBkZWZpbmVkDQogaW4gWzddIGFuZCBpcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGFmdGVy IGEgbWVzc2FnZSBmaWx0ZXIgdGVzdC4gQSBGYWxzZQ0KIFBvc2l0aXZlIChGUCkgaXMgd2hlcmUg YSAiTWVzc2FnZSBtYXRjaGVzIHRlc3QgY3JpdGVyaWEgYnV0IHRoZQ0KIGNyaXRlcmlhIGFyZSB0 b28gYWdncmVzc2l2ZS4iDQoNCjEuMy4xMyAgICBMZWdpdGltYXRlIE1lc3NhZ2luZyAoUkNEKQ0K DQoxLjMuMTQgICAgTWVzc2FnZSBDb250ZW50DQoNCiBUaGF0IHBhcnQgb2YgYSBtZXNzYWdpbmcg dHJhbnNhY3Rpb24gdGhhdCBjb250YWlucyBkYXRhIGFzDQogZGVzY3JpYmVkIGJ5IFs0XSxbOV0u ICBNZXNzYWdlIGNvbnRlbnQgY29uc2lzdHMgb2YgDQogUkZDMjgyMi9SRkM4MjIgY29tcGxpYW50 IGRhdGEuDQoNCjEuMy4xNSAgICBNZXNzYWdlIEVudmVsb3BlIEZvcmdlcnkgKFJDRCkNCg0KMS4z LjE2ICAgIE1lc3NhZ2UgRW52ZWxvcGUgUHJvdG9jb2wNCg0KIFRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCB1c2VkIGR1 cmluZyBtZXNzYWdlIHRyYW5zZmVyIHRvIGluc2VydCBtZXNzYWdlDQogY29udGVudCBpbnRvIHRo ZSBtZXNzYWdlIHRyYW5zZmVyIHN5c3RlbS4gIFRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IGVudmVsb3BlDQogcHJvdG9j b2wgdXNlZCBpbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFs1XS4gIFRoZSBtZXNzYWdlDQogZW52 ZWxvcGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgcHJlY2VkZXMgdGhlIHRyYW5zZmVyIG9mIG1lc3NhZ2UgY29udGVudCBh bmQNCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMsIEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAgICAg ICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDZdIA0KDEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRz ICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9iZXIgIDIsIDIwMDMNCg0KDQogdGVybWluYXRlcyBtZXNzYWdlIGNvbnRl bnQgdHJhbnNmZXIuDQoNCjEuMy4xNyAgICBNZXNzYWdlIEhlYWRlcg0KDQogVGhhdCBwYXJ0IG9m IG1lc3NhZ2UgY29udGVudCB0aGF0IHByZWNlZGVzIHRoZSBtZXNzYWdlIGJvZHkgDQogYW5kL29y IGRpY3RhdGVzIHRoZSBtZXRob2RvbG9neSBmb3IgcGFyc2luZyB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBpbnRvDQog bWVzc2FnZSBib2R5IHBhcnRzIGFzIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gWzRdLFs2XS4NCg0KMS4zLjE4ICAgIE1l c3NhZ2UgSGVhZGVyIEZvcmdlcnkgKFJDRCkNCg0KMS4zLjE5ICAgIE1lc3NhZ2UgT3JpZ2luYXRp b24NCg0KIFRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIG9mIGluc2VydGluZyBhbiBvcmlnaW5hbCBvciByZXZpc2VkIG1l c3NhZ2UgaW50bw0KIHRoZSBtZXNzYWdlIHRyYW5zZmVyIHN5c3RlbSBieSBhbiBNVUEsIGEgaHVt YW4gYWN0b3Igb3IgYW55DQogc3lzdGVtIGluIHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIG9mIHN5c3RlbXMgdGhhdCBj b21wcmlzZSB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZQ0KIHRyYW5zZmVyIHN5c3RlbS4NCg0KMS4zLjIwICAgIE1lc3Nh Z2UgT3JpZ2luYXRvcg0KDQogQW4gYWN0b3IsIGh1bWFuIG9yIG1hY2hpbmUsIHRoYXQgY2F1c2Vz IHRoZSBpbnNlcnRpb24gb2YgYW4NCiBvcmlnaW5hbCBvciByZXZpc2VkIG1lc3NhZ2UgaW50byB0 aGUgbWVzc2FnZSB0cmFuc2ZlciBzeXN0ZW0uDQoNCjEuMy4yMSAgICBNZXNzYWdlIFRyYW5zZmVy IEFnZW50DQogDQogQSBNZXNzYWdlIFRyYW5zZmVyIEFnZW50IChNVEEpIGlzIGFuIGVudGl0eSB3 aXRoaW4gdGhlIE1lc3NhZ2UNCiBUcmFuc2ZlciBTeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZXMgaW4g bWVzc2FnZSB0cmFuc3BvcnQgb24gdGhlDQogYmVoYWxmIG9mIE1lc3NhZ2UgT3JpZ2luYXRvcnMu DQoNCjEuMy4yMiAgICBNZXNzYWdlIFRyYW5zZmVyIFN5c3RlbQ0KDQogVGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb24g b2YgdGhlIE1lc3NhZ2UgVHJhbnNmZXIgU3lzdGVtIChNVFMpIGlzIGRlc2NyaWJlZA0KIGJ5IHRo ZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYW5kIGFzc29jaWF0ZXMgZWxlbWVudHMgaW4gdGhlIE1UUyBhcyBmb2xsb3dz Og0KDQogICAgICAgIE1lc3NhZ2UgVHJhbnNmZXIgU3lzdGVtDQogICAgKy0tLT4gTVRBIDwtPiBN VEEgPC0+IE1UQSA8LS0tLSsNCiAgICB8ICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgICAgICAgfA0K ICAgIHwgICAgICBWICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgViAgICAgICB8DQogICBNVUEgPC0+IE1TICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBNUyA8LT4gTVVBDQoNCiBUaGUgTVRTIGFsc28gZXhoaWJpdHMgY29udHJvbCBwb2lu dHMgYXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIFs3XSANCiBmb3IgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBbc3BhbV0uDQoNCjEuMy4y MyAgICBNZXNzYWdlIFVzZXIgQWdlbnQNCg0KIEEgcHJvZ3JhbSBvciB1c2VyIGludGVyZmFjZSB0 aGF0IHByb3ZpZGVzIGFjY2VzcyBmb3IgYSBodW1hbg0KIGFjdG9yIHRvIHRoZSBNVFMgYW5kL29y IG1lc3NhZ2VzIHN0b3JlZCBpbiBhIG1lc3NhZ2Ugc3RvcmUuIEENCiBtZXNzYWdlIHVzZXIgYWdl bnQgKE1VQSkgcHJvdmlkZXMgdGhlIGh1bWFuIGZyaWVuZGx5IGludGVyZmFjZSwNCiBpZiBuZWVk ZWQsIGZvciBzZW5kaW5nIGFuZCByZWNlaXZpbmcgbWVzc2FnZSB0cmFuc2FjdGlvbnMuDQogSXQg bWF5IGFsc28gc3VwcGx5IGFuIHVzZXItbGV2ZWwgcHJvZ3JhbW1pbmcgaW50ZXJmYWNlLCBmb3IN CiBwcm9ncmFtbWF0aWMgYWNjZXNzIHRvIHVzZXIgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eS4gIEFuIE1VQSBtYXkg DQogYWxzbyBwcm92aWRlIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcyBmb3IgZWRpdGluZywgZGVsZXRpbmcsIGZpbHRl cmluZywgDQogc29ydGluZyBhbmQgc3RvcmluZyBtZXNzYWdlcy4gIE1VQSBmZWF0dXJlcyB2YXJ5 IGFjcm9zcyANCiBwbGF0Zm9ybXMgYW5kIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gICANCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMs IEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAgICAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDdd IA0KDEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9i ZXIgIDIsIDIwMDMNCg0KDQoxLjMuMjQgICAgTWVzc2FnZSBTdG9yZS9NZXNzYWdlIFN0b3JhZ2Ug QWdlbnQNCg0KIEEgc3lzdGVtIHRoYXQgcHJvdmlkZXMgc3RvcmFnZSBmb3IgbWVzc2FnZXMsIHRo ZSBzeXN0ZW0gdXN1YWxseQ0KIGlzIGFjdGluZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYSBodW1hbiBhY3Rvciwg YnV0IHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IHJlcXVpcmVkLg0KIEFuIE1VQSBtYXkgYWN0IG9uIGEgbG9jYWwgbWVz c2FnZSBzdG9yZSBvciBtYXkgcHJvdmlkZSBhY2Nlc3MgDQogdG8gYSByZW1vdGUgbWVzc2FnZSBz dG9yYWdlIHN5c3RlbSwgb3IgYm90aC4gSW4gdGhlIGxhdHRlciBzZW5zZQ0KIHRoZSB0ZXJtIG1l c3NhZ2Ugc3RvcmFnZSBhZ2VudCBpcyB0eXBpY2FsbHkgdXNlZC4gIFRoZSB0ZXJtDQogbWVzc2Fn ZSBzdG9yZSAoTVMpIGlzIHVzdWFsbHksIHRob3VnaCBub3QgZXhjbHVzaXZlbHkgYXNzb2NpYXRl ZA0KIHdpdGggYSBzeXN0ZW0gd2hlcmUgbWVzc2FnZXMgYXJlIHN0b3JlZCBwcmlvciB0byByZXRy aWV2YWwgYnkgYW4gTVVBLiAgDQoNCg0KMS4zLjI1ICAgIE5vbiBDb25zZW50IEJhc2VkIENvbW11 bmljYXRpb24gKHNwYW0pIChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuMy4yNiAgICBPcGVuIFJlbGF5IE1UQQ0KDQogQW4g TVRBIHdoaWNoIGlzIGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgdG8gcmVsYXkgbWFpbCBmb3IgbG9jYWwgZG9tYWlucyBh bmQNCiBmb3JlaWduIGRvbWFpbnMgbm90IGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgTVRBLCB3aXRob3V0 IHJlc3RyaWN0aW5nDQogYWNjZXNzIHRvIHRoZSByZWxheSBmdW5jdGlvbnMuICBJbiBlc3NlbmNl IGFuIE9wZW4gUmVsYXkgTVRBIA0KIHR5cGljYWxseSByZWxheXMgbWVzc2FnZXMgZm9yIGtub3du IGFuZCB1bmtub3duIGRvbWFpbnMgYmVjYXVzZSANCiBvZiBpbXByb3BlciBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9u Lg0KIA0KMS4zLjI3ICAgIE9wdC1JbiAoUkNEKQ0KDQoxLjMuMjggICAgT3B0LU91dCAoUkNEKQ0K DQoxLjMuMjkgICAgUmVjaXBpZW50L1JlY2VpdmVyDQoNCiBBIGNvbXB1dGVyIHN5c3RlbSwgYXBw bGljYXRpb24gb3IgcHJvY2VzcyB0aGF0IGlzIHRoZSBmaW5hbCwNCiB0ZXJtaW5hdGluZyBlbmQg b2YgYSBtZXNzYWdpbmcgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIHNlcXVlbmNlLiAgQQ0KIHJlY2VpdmVyIGlzIGVu Z2FnZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFjdGl2aXR5IG9mIHJlY2VpdmluZyBmaW5hbCANCiBkZWxpdmVyeSBvZiBh IG1lc3NhZ2UgY29tcHJpc2luZyBhbiBtZXNzYWdlIGVudmVsb3BlIGFuZCANCiBvcHRpb25hbCBj b250ZW50LiAgQSByZWNlaXZlciB1c3VhbGx5IGlzIGFjdGluZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YNCiBhIGh1 bWFuIGFjdG9yLCBidXQgdGhpcyBpcyBub3QgcmVxdWlyZWQuDQoNCjEuMy4zMCAgICBTZW5kZXIN Cg0KIEEgY29tcHV0ZXIgc3lzdGVtLCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBvciBwcm9jZXNzIHRoYXQgaXMgdGhl IG9yaWdpbiwNCiB0ZXJtaW5hdGluZyBlbmQgb2YgYSBtZXNzYWdpbmcgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIHNl cXVlbmNlLiBBIHNlbmRlcg0KIGlzIGVuZ2FnZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFjdGl2aXR5IG9mIGluaXRpYWwg cG9zdGluZyBvZiBhIG1lc3NhZ2UgDQogY29tcHJpc2luZyBhbiBtZXNzYWdlIGVudmVsb3BlIGFu ZCBvcHRpb25hbCBjb250ZW50LiBBIHNlbmRlciANCiB1c3VhbGx5IGlzIGFjdGluZyBvbiBiZWhh bGYgb2YgYSBodW1hbiBhY3RvciwgYnV0IHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IA0KIHJlcXVpcmVkLiAgU2VuZGVy IG1heSBhbHNvIGJlIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBoZWFkZXIgZmllbGQgWzRdLg0KDQoxLjMuMzEgICAgU3Bh bW1lciAoUkNEKQ0KDQoxLjMuMzIgICAgUmVsYXkgTVRBDQoNCiBBbiBNVEEgY29uZmlndXJlZCB0 byBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiBhIHN0b3JlLWFuZC1mb3J3YXJkIA0KIHNlcXVlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4g YSBzZW5kZXIncyBNVEEgYW5kIGEgcmVjZWl2ZXIncyBNVEEuIFRoZSANCiB0ZXJtIFJlbGF5IE1U QSBpcyBtZWFudCB0byBhcHBseSB0byBNVEEgc3lzdGVtcyB0aGF0IGRvIG5vdCANCiB0cmFuc2Fj dCB3aXRoIE1VQXMsIGJ1dCBvbmx5IHdpdGggb3RoZXIgTVRBcy4NCg0KDQoNCldpbGxpYW1zLCBF LiAgICAgICAgICAgRXhwaXJlczogICBBcHJpbCAyLCAyMDAzICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSA4XSAN CgxJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVy ICAyLCAyMDAzDQoNCg0KMS4zLjMzICAgIFNlbGVjdGl2ZSBSZWxheSBNVEENCg0KIEFuIE1UQSBj b25maWd1cmVkIHRvIHJlY29nbml6ZSBhbmQgcGFydGljaXBhdGUgaW4gYQ0KIHN0b3JlLWFuZC1m b3J3YXJkIHNlcXVlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gYSBzZW5kZXIncyBNVEEgYW5kIGEgDQogcmVjZWl2ZXIn cyBNVEEgYnV0IG9ubHkgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2VzIHRoYXQgYXJlIG9yaWdpbmF0ZWQgZnJvbQ0KIGtu b3duIGRvbWFpbnNbOF0uICBBIFNlbGVjdGl2ZSBSZWxheSBNVEEgaXMgZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2hlZCBm cm9tIA0KIG90aGVyIFJlbGF5IE1UQXMgYnkgcGVyZm9ybWluZyBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQv b3IgDQogb3JpZ2luYXRpb24gY2hlY2tzIGJlZm9yZSByZWxheWluZyBhIG1lc3NhZ2UuICBUaGUg dGVybSANCiBTZWxlY3RpdmUgUmVsYXkgTVRBIG1heSBhcHBseSB0byBNVEEgc3lzdGVtcyB0aGF0 IHRyYW5zYWN0IA0KIHdpdGggTVVBcywgYW5kIHdpdGggb3RoZXIgTVRBcy4NCg0KMS4zLjM0ICAg IFJldmVyc2UgRE5TDQoNCiBUZXJtIHVzZWQgdG8gZGVzY3JpYmUgdGhlIHByb2Nlc3Mgb2YgdXNp bmcgdGhlIEROUyB0byBxdWVyeSBmb3IgYQ0KIG1hcHBpbmcgZnJvbSBudW1lcmljIGVuZCBwb2lu dCBpZGVudGlmaWVyIChJUCBhZGRyZXNzKSB0bw0KIGNoYXJhY3RlciBiYXNlZCB1c2VyIGZyaWVu ZGx5IG5hbWUgKGRvbWFpbiBuYW1lKS4NCg0KMS4zLjM1ICAgIE1lc3NhZ2UgVHJhbnNmZXIgUHJv dG9jb2wNCg0KIEZvciBwdXJwb3NlcyBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGEgTWVzc2FnZSBUcmFuc2Zl ciBQcm90b2NvbCANCiBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyBwcm90b2NvbCB1c2VkIHRv IGNvbW11bmljYXRlIA0KIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gY29tcHV0ZXIgc3lzdGVtcyBmb3Ig dGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgDQogcGVyZm9ybWluZyB0aGUgZXhjaGFuZ2Ugb2YgYXBwbGljYXRpb24g bWVzc2FnZSBkYXRhLiAgVGhlIA0KIHByb3RvY29sIG1heSBwcm92aWRlIHJlbGlhYmxlIG9yIHVu cmVsaWFibGUgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbnMuICANCiBUaGUgVHJhbnNmZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wgaXMgaW5k ZXBlbmRlbnQgb2YgbWVzc2FnZSBjb250ZW50LCANCiBhbHRob3VnaCBpdCBtYXkgaW1wb3NlIG90 aGVyIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zIGNvbnN0cmFpbnRzLg0KDQoxLjMuMzYgICAgVW5zb2xpY2l0ZWQg QnVsayBFLU1haWwgKFJDRCkNCg0KMS4zLjM3ICAgIFVuc29saWNpdGVkIENvbW1lcmNpYWwgRS1N YWlsIChSQ0QpDQoNCjEuNCAgQW50aSBTcGFtIFRlY2huaWNhbCBGcmFtZXdvcmsNCiANCiBUaGlz IGRvY3VtZW50IGFzc3VtZXMgdGhlIHRlY2huaWNhbCBmcmFtZXdvcmsgZm9yIGFudGktW3NwYW1d DQogcHJvcG9zYWxzIHVzaW5nIHRoZSB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gMS4z LCB3ZQ0KIGFzc3VtZSB0aGUgTVRTIGlzIHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IG1lYW5zIGZvciB0cmFuc2ZlcnJp bmcgbWVzc2FnZXMNCiBhbW9uZyBzZW5kZXJzIGFuZCByZWNpcGllbnRzLiAgVGhlIE1UUyBjb25z aXN0cyBvZiBhdCBsZWFzdCB0d28NCiBNVEFzLCBNVUFzIGFuZCBNUyBzeXN0ZW1zLiAgVGhlIE1U UyByZWxpZXMgb24gdGhlIEROUyB0bw0KIGxvY2F0ZSBuZXR3b3JrIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0 IHJlbGV2YW50IHN5c3RlbXMuICBUaGUgTVRTDQogdXNlcyB2YXJpb3VzIHRyYW5zcG9ydCwgZW52 ZWxvcGUgYW5kIG1lc3NhZ2UgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIHRoYXQNCiBhcmUgd2VsbCBrbm93biB0byBb c3BhbW1lcnNdIGFuZCBNVFMgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zLg0KDQogVGhlc2UgYXJlIHRoZSBvbmx5IGFz c3VtcHRpb25zIHdlIG1ha2UgY29uY2VybmluZyBhcHByb2FjaGVzIHRvDQogcHJvcG9zYWxzIHRo YXQgd2lsbCBiZSBldmFsdWF0ZWQuICBVc2luZyB0aGF0IGxvZ2ljIHRoZQ0KIGZvbGxvd2luZyBz aG91bGQgbm90IG1hdHRlcjoNCiAgDQogIG8gIFdoaWNoIGNvbXBvbmVudCBvZiB0aGUgTVRTIGlz IHRoZSBwbGF0Zm9ybSBmb3IgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIA0KICAgICBzb2x1dGlvbiwNCiAgbyAgV2hl dGhlciB0aGUgcHJvcG9zZWQgc29sdXRpb24gbWFrZXMgbm8gY2hhbmdlcyB0byBleGlzdGluZw0K ICAgICBwcm90b2NvbHMgW2kuZS4gcG9saWN5IGVuZm9yY2VkIHdpdGggZXhpc2l0aW5nIHByb3Rv Y29sXSwgaXMNCiAgICAgYW4gIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdG8gZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2xzLCBvciBp cyBhbiBlbnRpcmVseSBuZXcNCiAgICAgcHJvdG9jb2wuDQogIG8gIFdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIHByb3Bv c2VkIHNvbHV0aW9uIHVzZXMgZXhpc3RpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLCANCiAgICAgbGV2ZXJhZ2Vz IGV4aXN0aW5nIHRlY2hub2xvZ3ksIG9yIGRlcGVuZHMgb24gbmV3IHRlY2hub2xvZ3kuLg0KDQpX aWxsaWFtcywgRS4gICAgICAgICAgRXhwaXJlczogICBBcHJpbCAyLCAyMDAzICAgICAgICAgICAg W1BhZ2UgOV0gDQoMSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgICAgICAgICAgICBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgICAgICAg ICAgT2N0b2JlciAgMiwgMjAwMw0KDQoNCjEuNSAgT3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIG9mIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50 cw0KIA0KIFRoZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgb3V0bGluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCByZWZsZWN0 IHRoZSBoaWdoDQogbGV2ZWwgYXNwZWN0cyBmb3Igb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgZGVwbG95bWVudCBvZiBh IHNvbHV0aW9uLiAgRm9yDQogZWFjaCByZXF1aXJlbWVudCB3ZSB3aWxsIHN0YXRlIHRoZSByZXF1 aXJlbWVudCBhcyBjbGVhcmx5IGFzDQogcG9zc2libGUgd2l0aG91dCBhdHRlbXB0aW5nIHRvIGRp Y3RhdGUgYSBzcGVjaWZpYyBpZGVhLiAgVGhlbg0KIHRoZSByYXRpb25hbGUgZm9yIHN0YXRpbmcg dGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGFuZCBpdHMgaW1wb3J0YW5jZQ0KIHdpbGwgYmUgZ2l2ZW4gYWxvbmcg d2l0aCBpdHMgcmVsYXRpdmUgdXNlZnVsbmVzcyB0byBhIHByb3Bvc2FsDQogb3Igc3BlY2lmaWNh dGlvbi4gIE9wdGlvbmFsbHksIHdlIHdpbGwgcHJvdmlkZSBhbiBvcGVyYXRpb25hbA0KIHNjZW5h cmlvIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgaG93IHN1Y2ggYSBmZWF0dXJlIG1heSBiZSB1c2VkIGluIHRoZQ0KIGVu dmlyb25tZW50IGJlaW5nIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQuICBTY2VuYXJpb5JzIGFyZSBvbmx5IGlsbHVzdHJh dGl2ZQ0KIG9mIGFjdGlvbnMgYSBmZWF0dXJlIG1pZ2h0IGVuYWJsZS4NCiANCiBJdCBpcyBleHBl Y3RlZCB0aGF0IHByb3Bvc2FscyB3aWxsIGF0IGEgbWluaW11bSBtZWV0IHRoZQ0KIHJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cyBsYWlkIG91dCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50LiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudA0K IHNob3VsZCBvbmx5IGJlIHVzZWQgZ2VuZXJhbGx5IGFzIGEgc2luZ2xlIGNyaXRlcmlhIGFtb25n IG90aGVycyANCiB1c2VkIHRvIGV2YWx1YXRlIGEgcHJvcG9zYWwuICBUaGUgQVNSRyBtYXkgdXNl IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgDQogbWV0cmljcyBmb3IgZXZhbHVhdGlvbiBvZiBwcm9wb3NhbHMgb2YgY29t cGV0aW5nIGRlc2lnbnMuDQoNCjIuICBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMNCg0KMi4xICBVc2Ugb2YgZXhpc3Rp bmcgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzDQogDQogQVNSRyBwcm9wb3NhbHMgU0hBTEwgcmVmZXJlbmNlIGFuZCB1 c2UgcHJldmlvdXNseSBwdWJsaXNoZWQNCiBSRkNzIHdoZXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlLg0KDQoyLjEuMSAg ICAgUmF0aW9uYWxlOg0KIA0KIFRoZSBJRVRGIGhhcyBhbHJlYWR5IGNvbXBsZXRlZCBhIGdyZWF0 IGRlYWwgb2YgcmVzZWFyY2ggYW5kDQogd29yayBpbnRvIHRoZSBhcmVhcyBvZiBhdXRoZW50aWNh dGlvbiwgaWRlbnRpZmljYXRpb24sDQogYXV0aG9yaXphdGlvbiwgbWVzc2FnaW5nIGFuZCBtZXNz YWdpbmcgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbnMgYW5kIG90aGVyDQogcmVsYXRlZCBwcm90b2NvbHMuICBJbiBv cmRlciB0byBmYWNpbGl0YXRlIHRoZSB3b3JrIG9mIHRoaXMNCiBncm91cCBhbmQgaXRzIHNlYXJj aCBmb3IgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiBpdCBpcyB3aXNlIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyDQogZGVmaW5lZCBhbmQgYWNj ZXB0ZWQgc3RhbmRhcmRzLg0KDQoyLjIgIEluZXhwZW5zaXZlDQogDQogVGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIE1V U1QgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uYWwgYW5kIHN0b3JhZ2UNCiBleHBlbnNlIGZvciB1 c2VycyBhbmQgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgTVRTIHV0aWxpemluZyB0aGUNCiBwcm9w b3NlZCBhcHByb2FjaC4NCg0KMi4yLjEgICAgIFJhdGlvbmFsOg0KIA0KIEFueSBhZGRpdGlvbmFs IG92ZXJoZWFkIGltcG9zZWQgb24gc3lzdGVtcyBpbiB0aGUgb3BlcmF0aW5nDQogZW52aXJvbm1l bnQgbWF5IGluZmx1ZW5jZSB0aGUgbGV2ZWwgb2YgZGVwbG95bWVudCBvZiB0aGUNCiBwcm9wb3Nl ZCBhcHByb2FjaC4gIFRvIGVuaGFuY2UgZGVwbG95bWVudCBvcHBvcnR1bml0aWVzIGl0IGlzDQog c21hcnQgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGltcGFjdCBvZiB0aGUgYXBwcm9hY2ggb24gY29tcHV0YXRp b25hbA0KIGFuZCBodW1hbiByZXNvdXJjZXMuDQoNCg0KIA0KDQoNCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMsIEUuICAg ICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDEwXSANCgxJ bnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAy LCAyMDAzDQoNCg0KMi4zICBFYXNlIG9mIFVzZQ0KIA0KIFRoZSBhcHByb2FjaCBTSEFMTCBjb25z aWRlciB0aGUgZWFzZSBvZiB1c2UgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2Ugc3lzdGVtDQogbWFuYWdlcnMsIHNlbmRl cnMgYW5kIHJlY2lwaWVudHMgaW4gYWxsIG1lc3NhZ2luZyBzaXR1YXRpb25zLg0KDQoyLjMuMSAg ICAgUmF0aW9uYWxlOg0KIA0KIEZvciBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIGFkb3B0aW9uIGJ5IHRoZSB1c2VyIGNv bW11bml0eSwgcHJvcG9zYWxzIG11c3QNCiBwcm92aWRlIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHR5cGljYWwgYW5k IGF0eXBpY2FsIG1lc3NhZ2luZyBzaXR1YXRpb25zLg0KIE1hbnkgZGlmZmVyZW50IGNvcnJlc3Bv bmRlbnQgc2NlbmFyaW9zIGV4aXN0IGluIHRoZSBNVFMuIA0KIEEgcHJvcG9zYWwgd2hpY2ggbGlt aXRzIHRoZSBlYXNlIG9mIG1lc3NhZ2luZyBnaXZlbiBleGlzdGluZw0KIHNjZW5hcmlvcyB3aWxs IG9idGFpbiBvbmx5IGxpbWl0ZWQgYWRvcHRpb24uDQoNCjIuNCAgRWFzZSBvZiBEZXBsb3ltZW50 DQogDQogVGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIFNIT1VMRCBjb25zaWRlciBkZXBsb3ltZW50IG9uIGFueSBiYXNp cyBhbmQgdGFrZQ0KIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCBleGlzdGluZyBzeXN0ZW1zIGRlcGxveWVkIGFuZCBv cGVyYXRpbmcgaW4gdGhlDQogTVRTLg0KDQoyLjQuMSAgICAgUmF0aW9uYWw6DQogDQogQW55IHNv bHV0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtcyB3aXRoIJFzcGFtkiBzaG91bGQgYmUgZWFzaWx5DQogZGVw bG95ZWQgdG8gZmFjaWxpdGF0ZSBlaXRoZXIgaW5jcmVtZW50YWwgb3Igd2lkZS1zcHJlYWQNCiBh ZG9wdGlvbi4gIEV4aXN0aW5nIHN5c3RlbXMgd2lsbCBsaWtlbHkgY29udGludWUgdG8gYmUgdXNl ZCwNCiB0aHVzIGEgc29sdXRpb24gdGhhdCBsZXZlcmFnZXMgZXhpc3RpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBv ciBNVFMgkWFudGktDQogc3BhbZIgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBzcGVlZCBpbnRy b2R1Y3Rpb24uICBBIHByb3Bvc2FsDQogdGhhdCByZWxpZXMgb24gbm9uLWV4aXN0ZW50IGluZnJh c3RydWN0dXJlIG9yIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgbm90DQogbGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIGRlcGxveWVkLg0K DQoyLjUgIEludGVyb3BlcmFibGUNCiANCiBQcm9wb3NhbHMgTVVTVCBiZSBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmxl IHdpdGggZXhpc3RpbmcgTVRTIHVzZXMuDQoNCjIuNS4xICAgICBSYXRpb25hbDoNCiANCiBJbiBv cmRlciB0byBiZSB3aWRlbHkgZGVwbG95ZWQgYW5kIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgaW4gdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5n DQogZW52aXJvbm1lbnQgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIG11c3QgY29uc2lkZXIgaW50ZXJvcGVyYXRpb24g d2l0aA0KIGxlZ2FjeSBwcm90b2NvbHMgYW5kIHN5c3RlbXMuICBUaGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgTVRTIGVu dmlyb25tZW50DQogY29uc2lzdHMgb2Ygd2ViIGJhc2VkIG1lc3NhZ2luZyBjbGllbnQsIG9mZmxp bmUgTVVBcywgTVVBcyB0aGF0DQogc3VwcG9ydCBkaXJlY3QgYWNjZXNzIHRvIE1TIGFuZCBkZWxp dmVyeSB0byBNVEEgcmVsYXlzLCBldGMuDQoNCiBBZGRpdGlvbmFsbHksIHRoZSBwbGF0Zm9ybXMg dGhhdCBtYW5hZ2UgbWVzc2FnaW5nIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucw0KIGFyZSBhbHNvIGhldGVyb2dlbmVv dXMsIGRlc2lnbmVycyBtdXN0IGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSBwcmFjdGljYWxpdHkNCiBvZiBvcGVyYXRp b24gdXNpbmcgbXVsdGlwbGUgb3BlcmF0aW5nIHN5c3RlbXMgYW5kIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4NCiBQ cm9wb3NhbHMgbXVzdCBub3QgYmUgc3BlY2lmaWMgdG8gYSBzaW5nbGUgb3BlcmF0aW5nIHN5c3Rl bSBvcg0KIHN5c3RlbSBwbGF0Zm9ybS4NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpXaWxsaWFtcywgRS4gICAg ICAgICAgRXhwaXJlczogICBBcHJpbCAyLCAyMDAzICAgICAgICAgICAgW1BhZ2UgMTFdIA0KDElu dGVybmV0LURyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9iZXIgIDIs IDIwMDMNCg0KDQoyLjYgIEhpZ2hseSBFZmZlY3RpdmUNCiANCiBUaGUgcHJvcG9zYWwgTVVTVCBw cm92aWRlIGFuIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBzb2x1dGlvbiBhbmQgaWRlbnRpZnkgdGhlDQogc3Vic2V0IG9m IFtzcGFtXSBpdCB3aWxsIGJlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBhZ2FpbnN0IHdpdGggQXNzdW1wdGlvbnMuDQoN CjIuNi4xICAgICBSYXRpb25hbGU6DQogDQogQWx0aG91Z2ggcHJvcG9zYWxzIG1heSBkaWZmZXIg aW4gYXBwcm9hY2ggYWxsIHByb3Bvc2FscyB3aWxsIGJlDQogZXZhbHVhdGVkIHVzaW5nIGFuIGFw cHJvcHJpYXRlIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9ucw0KIHByZXNlbnRlZCBhbmQg dGhlIHNvbHV0aW9uIHNldCBkZXNjcmliZWQuICBUaGlzIHdpbGwgcHJvdmlkZQ0KIGEgY29uc2lz dGVudCBiYXNpcyBhbmQgbWVhc3VyZXMgZm9yIGV2YWx1YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlDQogYXBwcm9hY2gu DQoNCjIuNyAgUGVyc2lzdGVudGx5IEVmZmVjdGl2ZQ0KIA0KIFRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbCBTSE9VTEQg cHJvdmlkZSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBzdGVwIGluIGFuIGVudmlyb25tZW50DQogb2YgZXNjYWxhdGlu ZyBjb3VudGVybWVhc3VyZXMuDQoNCjIuNy4xICAgICBSYXRpb25hbDoNCiANCiBBdXRob3JzIHNo b3VsZCBjb25zaWRlciB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIHF1byBjb25jZXJuaW5nIHRoZQ0KIGRldmVsb3BtZW50 IGFuZCBkZXBsb3ltZW50IG9mIHN0b3AtZ2FwIG1lYXN1cmVzIGEgZmFpbHVyZS4NCiBTb2x1dGlv bnMgb3IgcmVzZWFyY2ggaW50byB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBzaG91bGQgcHJlc2VudCBhDQogdGhyZWF0 IGFuYWx5c2lzIHdpdGggdGhlIHRocmVhdChzKSBiZWluZyBhZGRyZXNzZWQsIHByb3RlY3Rpb24N CiBnb2FscywgcG9zc2libGUgY291bnRlcm1lYXN1cmVzIGFuZCBkZWZlbnNlcyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRo b3NlDQogY291bnRlcm1lYXN1cmVzIG92ZXIgdGhlIGxvbmdlc3QgcGVyaW9kIHBvc3NpYmxlIG9y IHRoYXQgDQogcHJvdmFibHkgd29yayBmb3JldmVyLg0KDQoyLjggIERvZXNuJ3QgSW50ZXJmZXJl IFdpdGggVGhlIERlbGl2ZXJ5IE9mIExlZ2l0aW1hdGUgTWFpbA0KIA0KIFRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbCBN VVNUIGNvbnNpZGVyLCBhZGRyZXNzIGFuZCBrZWVwIGF0IGEgbWluaW11bQ0KIGltcGFjdHMgb24g W2xlZ2l0aW1hdGVdIG1lc3NhZ2luZyB0cmFmZmljIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgTVRTLg0KDQoyLjguMSAg ICAgUmF0aW9uYWxlOg0KIA0KIFByb3Bvc2FscyBtdXN0IGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSByZWFzb25zIGZv ciBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQNCiBkZXBsb3ltZW50IG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IE1UUzog bG93IGxhdGVuY3ksIGhpZ2gNCiBkZWxpdmVyYWJpbGl0eSwgc2NhbGFiaWxpdHksIGZ1bmN0aW9u YWxpdHkgZm9yIG11bHRpcGxlIGNvbnRlbnQNCiB0eXBlcywgZXRjLiAgQXV0aG9ycyBzaG91bGQg ZGV2ZWxvcCBwcm9wb3NhbHMgdGhhdCBtaW5pbWl6ZQ0KIGltcGFjdCBpbiB0aGVzZSBjcml0aWNh bCBhcmVhcyBmb3IgW2xlZ2l0aW1hdGVdIE1UUyB1c2VzLiAgVGh1cw0KIGFuIG9wdGltYWwgcHJv cG9zYWwgd2lsbCBpbXBhY3Qgb25seSBbc3BhbV0gYW5kIG5vdA0KIFtsZWdpdGltYXRlXSBtZXNz YWdpbmcgdHJhZmZpYy4NCg0KMi45IEdvYWwgT3JpZW50ZWQgU29sdXRpb24NCg0KIFRoZSBwcm9w b3NhbCBTSE9VTEQgcHJvdmlkZSBhIGNhcmVmdWxseSBkcmFmdGVkIHNjb3BlIG9mIGl0cw0KIGdv YWxzIGFuZCBpdHMgZWZmZWN0aXZlbmVzcyBhdCBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIHRob3NlIGdvYWxzLiBTeXN0 ZW1zDQogU0hPVUxEIGNvbnNpZGVyIGhvdyB0aGV5IGludGVyb3BlcmF0ZSB3aXRoIG90aGVyIFth bnRpLXNwYW1dIHN5c3RlbXMuDQoNCjIuOS4xICAgIFJhdGlvbmFsZToNCiANCiBBIHNpbmdsZSBz b2x1dGlvbiB0aGF0IHdpbGwgd29yayBmb3IgYWxsIHBlb3BsZSBpcyB0aGUgb3B0aW11bQ0KDQoN CldpbGxpYW1zLCBFLiAgICAgICAgICBFeHBpcmVzOiAgIEFwcmlsIDIsIDIwMDMgICAgICAgICAg ICBbUGFnZSAxMl0gDQoMSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgICAgICAgICAgICBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgICAg ICAgICAgT2N0b2JlciAgMiwgMjAwMw0KDQoNCiBzb2x1dGlvbi4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGRlc2lnbmVy cyBzaG91bGQgcHJvdmlkZSBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uIHRoYXQNCiBjYXJlZnVsbHkgc2NvcGVzIG91 dCB0aGUgZ29hbHMgYW5kIGVmZmVjdGl2ZWx5IGFkZHJlc3NlcyB0aGVtLg0KIEludGVyb3BlcmF0 aW9uIG9mIFthbnRpLXNwYW1dIHNvbHV0aW9ucyBtYXkgYmVuZWZpdCB0aGUgb3ZlcmFsbA0KIHNv bHV0aW9uLiAgQSBzb2x1dGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIG9wdGltYWwgYWxzbyBpbXBhY3RzIGFsbCBvZiB0 aGUNCiBwcm9ibGVtcyBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggW3NwYW1dLCBzdWNoIGFzIFtsaXN0IG9mIHBy b2JsZW0gdGVybXNdLiANCiBBcHByb2FjaGVzIHRoYXQgaW1wYWN0IGEgc3ViLWRvbWFpbiBvZiBw cm9ibGVtcyBzaG91bGQgYmUNCiBkZXNpZ25lZCB0byBsZXZlcmFnZSB0aGF0IGFwcHJvYWNoIHdp dGggb3RoZXIgYXBwcm9hY2hlcyB0bw0KIGJyb2FkZW4gdGhlIG92ZXJhbGwgc29sdXRpb24uDQoN CjIuMTAgTGVnaXNsYXRpdmUgYW5kIFBvbGljeSBDb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucw0KIA0KIFRoZSBwcm9w b3NhbCBTSE9VTEQgY29uc2lkZXIgaG93IGxhd3MgYW5kIHBvbGljaWVzIGFmZmVjdCwgc3VwcG9y dA0KIG9yIGNvbnN0cmFpbiB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4NCg0KMi4xMC4xICAgIFJhdGlvbmFsZToN CiANCiBBIHByb3Bvc2FsIHNob3VsZCBjb25zaWRlciBob3cgbGVnYWwgYW5kIHBvbGljeSBpc3N1 ZXMgYWZmZWN0LA0KIHN1cHBvcnQsIG9yIGNvbnN0cmFpbiB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gSWYgYSBz b2x1dGlvbiBzdXBwb3J0cw0KIG9yIGlzIHN1cHBvcnRlZCBieSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIGxlZ2lzbGF0 aW9uLCB0aGVuIHRoaXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlDQogZXhwbGljaXRseSBzdGF0ZWQuIFdlIGVuY291cmFn ZSBhdXRob3JzIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlDQogcmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHRl Y2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIHRoZSBsZWdpc2xhdGlvbiBhbmQgDQogZWZmZWN0cyBvZiBhIHNvbHV0aW9u IG9uIGVuZm9yY2VtZW50IG9mIGxlZ2lzbGF0aW9uIGFzIGl0DQogcmVsYXRlcyB0byBhaWRpbmcg aW4gZW5mb3JjZW1lbnQuDQoNCjIuMTEgQ29tcGxleGl0eQ0KIA0KIFRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbCBTSE9V TEQgc3RyaXZlIGZvciBzaW1wbGljaXR5IHZlcnN1cyBjb21wbGV4aXR5Lg0KDQoyLjExLjEgICAg UmF0aW9uYWxlOg0KIA0KIEFueSB0ZWNobmljYWwgc29sdXRpb24gdGhhdCBtZWV0cyB0aGUgY3Jp dGVyaWEgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGZvcg0KIHN1Y2Nlc3Mgc2hvdWxkIHJlbWFpbiBhcyBzaW1wbGUgYXMg cG9zc2libGUgd2l0aGluIHRoZQ0KIGNvbnN0cmFpbnRzIG9mIHRoZSBtZXRob2RvbG9neS4gIFJl Z2FyZGxlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIG1ldGhvZCB1c2VkDQogdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbXMgb2Yg W3NwYW1dLCB0aGUgcHJvcG9zYWwgc2hvdWxkIGJlDQogZWFzaWx5IHVuZGVyc3Rvb2Qgb3IgZGVz Y3JpYmVkIHVzaW5nIHNpbXBsZSB0ZXJtcy4gIFRoZSBsZXNzDQogY29tcGxleCB0aGUgc29sdXRp b24gb3IgYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBvZiBpdHMgZnVuY3Rpb25pbmcsIHRoZQ0KIG1vcmUgbGlrZWx5 IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBieSBhIHdpZGUgYXVkaWVuY2UuDQoNCjIuMTIgSW1wbGVtZW50IGFiaWxp dHkNCiANCiBQcm9wb3NhbHMgTVVTVCByZXByZXNlbnQgYSBtZXRob2RvbG9neSBvciB0ZWNobm9s b2d5IHRoYXQgaXQgaXMNCiBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byBpbXBsZW1lbnQuDQoNCjIuMTIuMSAgICBSYXRp b25hbGU6DQogDQogV2hpbGUgbWFueSB0aGVvcmllcyBmb3IgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBhbmQgZXJhZGlj YXRpbmcgdGhlIHByb2JsZW1zDQogYmVpbmcgYWRkcmVzc2VkIGV4aXN0IG9ubHkgYSBzdWItc2V0 IG9mIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJsZSB1bml2ZXJzZQ0KIG9mIHRoZW9yaWVzIGNhbiBiZSBkZXZlbG9wZWQg aW50byBhIHNvbHV0aW9uIHRoYXQgY2FuIGJlDQogc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IGltcGxlbWVudGVkLiAg SW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gcHJlc2VydmUgdGhlIHJlc291cmNlcw0KIGZvciBldmFsdWF0aW9uIG9mIHBy b3Bvc2FscyBhbmQgbGltaXQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiBub24tDQogd29ya2FibGUgcHJvcG9zYWxz LCBkZXNpZ25lcnMgbXVzdCBwcmVzZW50IHByb3Bvc2FscyB3aGVyZSB0aGUNCiBjb25zaWRlcmF0 aW9uIG9mIGVhc2Ugb2YgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24sIHBlcmNlaXZlZA0KDQpXaWxsaWFtcywgRS4g ICAgICAgICAgRXhwaXJlczogICBBcHJpbCAyLCAyMDAzICAgICAgICAgICAgW1BhZ2UgMTNdIA0K DEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzICAgICAgICAgIE9jdG9iZXIg IDIsIDIwMDMNCg0KDQogaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gZGlmZmljdWx0aWVzLCBleGlzdGluZyBpbXBs ZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMsDQogcmVmZXJlbmNlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucywgYW5kL29yIGludGVyb3Bl cmFibGUgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zDQogaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGFkZHJlc3NlZC4NCg0KMi4xMyBPdGhl ciBQbGF0Zm9ybXMNCiANCiBQcm9wb3NhbHMgTUFZIGNvbnNpZGVyIG1ldGhvZG9sb2dpZXMgdGhh dCBhcmUgZWZmZWN0aXZlIG9uDQogcGxhdGZvcm1zIGFuZCBzeXN0ZW0gYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIHRv IHRoZSB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBNVFMuDQoNCjIuMTMuMSAgICBSYXRpb25hbGU6DQogDQogVGVjaG5v bG9naWVzIGFyZSBlbWVyZ2luZyBhbmQgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFzIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlDQogbWVzc2Fn aW5nIGVudmlyb25tZW50cyB0byB0aGUgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWwgTVRTLiAgRGVzaWduZXJzIG1heQ0K IGNvbnNpZGVyIGluY2x1ZGluZyBzcGVjaWZpYyBvciBnZW5lcmFsIG1ldGhvZG9sb2dpZXMgdGhh dCB3aWxsDQogaW50ZXJvcGVyYXRlIHdpdGggb3IgaW50ZWdyYXRlIHdpdGggdGhlc2UgZW1lcmdp bmcgYW5kDQogYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLiAgTWV0aG9kcyB0aGF0IHdvcmsgd2l0 aCBpbnN0YW50DQogbWVzc2VuZ2VycywgcmVjZWl2ZS1vbmx5IGFscGhhbnVtZXJpYyBwYWdlcnMs IHR3by13YXkNCiBhbHBoYW51bWVyaWMgcGFnZXJzLCBhbmQvb3IgU01TL3Bob25lIHRleHQgbWVz c2FnaW5nIGFyZSBzb21lDQogb2YgdGhlIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBjb25zaWRlcmVk IGdvb2QgY2FuZGlkYXRlcyBmb3INCiBldmFsdWF0aW9uLg0KDQoyLjE0IEFjY291bnRhYmlsaXR5 IGFuZCBBbm9ueW1pdHkNCiANCiBQcm9wb3NhbHMgTVVTVCBhZGRyZXNzIGlzc3VlcyBvZiBhY2Nv dW50YWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgYW5vbnltaXR5DQogb2YgTVRTIHVzZXJzLCBzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHkgbWVz c2FnZSBzZW5kZXJzLg0KDQoyLjE0LjEgICAgUmF0aW9uYWxlOg0KIA0KIE9uZSBvZiB0aGUgbW9z dCBwZXJuaWNpb3VzIGlzc3VlcyBpbnZvbHZpbmcgW3NwYW1dIGFyZSByZWxhdGVkDQogdG8gYWNj b3VudGFiaWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIFtzcGFtbWVyc10gd2hvIHByb3ZpZGUgaW52YWxpZCBvcg0KIHNp bXVsYXRlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbiBvcmRlciB0byCTZ2FtZSB0aGUgc3lzdGVtlCBwcm92aWRl ZCBieQ0KIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IE1UUy4gIERlc2lnbmVycyBNVVNUIGRlc2NyaWJlIHRoZSBpc3N1 ZXMgb2YNCiBhY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eSBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYnkgdGhlaXIgcHJvcG9zYWwuICBNZXNz YWdlDQogb3JpZ2luYXRpb24gYW5kIG1lc3NhZ2UgZm9ybWF0dGluZyBmb3JnZXJ5IG11c3QgYmUg Y29uc2lkZXJlZA0KIGluIGRlc2lnbnMsIGFuIG9wdGltYWwgZGVzaWduIHdvdWxkIGFsbG93IHRy YWNpbmcgb2YgbWVzc2FnZXMNCiB0byB0aGUgc2VuZGluZyBwZXJzb24sIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBh bmQvb3Igc3lzdGVtLg0KDQogQWRkaXRpb25hbGx5LCB0aGVyZSBpcyBqdXN0IGNhdXNlIGZvciBw cmVzZXJ2aW5nIHNlbmRlcg0KIGFub255bWl0eSBhbmQgc3VwcG9ydGluZyB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGFw cHJvcHJpYXRlIJFhbm9ueW1pemF0aW9ukg0KIHNlcnZpY2VzIHRoYXQgY3VycmVudGx5IGV4aXN0 LiAgRGVzaWduZXJzIG11c3QgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlDQogaW1wYWN0IG9mIGFjY291bnRhYmlsaXR5 IGJ5IGEgcHJvcG9zYWwgb24gdGhlc2Ugc3lzdGVtcyBhbmQgDQogYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgaXNzdWVz IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gcHJlc2VydmluZyBhbm9ueW1pdHkgZm9yIA0KIFtsZWdpdGltYXRlXSB1c2Vz Lg0KDQozLiAgU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMNCiANCiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRvZXMg bm90IGFkZHJlc3Mgc2VjdXJpdHkgbWF0dGVycy4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsDQogc2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIHBy aXZhY3kgYXJlIGltcG9ydGFudCBjb25jZXJucyB0aGF0IG11c3QgYmUNCiBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHdo aWxlIGRldmVsb3BpbmcgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiB3aGljaCBkZWFscyB3aXRoIHB1YmxpYw0KIGFuZCBw cml2YXRlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRlbmNlLiAgU2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgc2hvdWxkIGJl DQogZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgYnkgdGhlIEFTUkcgYnV0IGFyZSBub3QgcHJlc2VudGx5IGluY2x1ZGVk Lg0KDQoNCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMsIEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAg ICAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDE0XSANCgxJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAyLCAyMDAzDQoNCg0KSW5mb3JtYXRpdmUgUmVmZXJlbmNl cw0KDQogWzFdICBCcmFkbmVyLCBTLiwgIlRoZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBTdGFuZGFyZHMgUHJvY2VzcyAt LSBSZXZpc2lvbg0KICAgICAgMyIsIEJDUDksIFJGQyAyMDI2LCBPY3RvYmVyIDE5OTYuDQogDQog WzJdICBCcmFkbmVyLCBTLiwgIktleSB3b3JkcyBmb3IgdXNlIGluIFJGQ3MgdG8gSW5kaWNhdGUN CiAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50IExldmVscyIsIEJDUCAxNCwgUkZDIDIxMTksIE1hcmNoIDE5OTcu DQoNCiBbM10gIE1vY2thcGV0cmlzLCBQLiwgIkRvbWFpbiBOYW1lIFN5c3RlbSIsIFNURCAxMywg UkZDIDEwMzQNCiAgICAgIGFuZCBSRkMgMTAzNSwgIE5vdmVtYmVyIDE5ODcuDQoNCiBbNF0gIFJl c25pY2ssIFAuLCBFZC4sICJJbnRlcm5ldCBNZXNzYWdlIEZvcm1hdCIsIFJGQyAyODIyLCBBcHJp bA0KICAgICAgMjAwMS4NCg0KIFs1XSAgS2xlbnNpbiwgSi4gIlNpbXBsZSBNYWlsIFRyYW5zZmVy IFByb3RvY29sIiwgUkZDIDI4MjEsDQogICAgICBBcHJpbCAyMDAxLiANCg0KIFs2XSAgRnJlZWQs IE4uIGFuZCAgTi4gQm9yZW5zdGVpbiwgIk11bHRpcHVycG9zZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBNYWlsDQogICAg ICBFeHRlbnNpb25zIChNSU1FKSBQYXJ0IE9uZTogRm9ybWF0IG9mIEludGVybmV0IE1lc3NhZ2UN CiAgICAgIEJvZGllcyIsIFJGQyAyMDQ1LCBOb3ZlbWJlciAxOTk2Lg0KDQogWzddICBDcm9ja2Vy LCBELiAiVGVjaG5pY2FsIENvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIGZvciBTcGFtIENvbnRyb2wNCiAgICAgIE1l Y2hhbmlzbXMiLCB3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzLCBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdA0KICAgICAgZHJhZnQt Y3JvY2tlci1zcGFtLXRlY2hjb25zaWRlci0wMC50eHQsIEFwcmlsIDIwMDMuIA0KDQogWzhdICBQ YXJ0cmlkZ2UsIEMuLCAiTWFpbCBSb3V0aW5nIGFuZCB0aGUgRG9tYWluIFN5c3RlbSIsIFNURA0K ICAgICAgMTQsIFJGQyA5NzQsIEphbnVhcnkgMTk4Ni4NCg0KIFs5XSAgQ3JvY2tlciwgRC4sICJT dGFuZGFyZCBmb3IgdGhlIEZvcm1hdCBvZiBBUlBBIEludGVybmV0IFRleHQNCiAgICAgIE1lc3Nh Z2VzIiwgUkZDIDgyMiwgQXVndXN0IDE5ODIuDQoNCg0KQXV0aG9ycycgQWRkcmVzc2VzDQogDQog RXJpYyBELiBXaWxsaWFtcw0KIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIEJyb2tlcnMsIEluYy4NCiAxMzA5IFMgU3Ry ZWV0LCBTRQ0KIFdhc2hpbmd0b24sIERDIDIwMDIwDQogVVMNCiANCiBFTWFpbDogZXJpY0BpbmZv YnJvLmNvbQ0KIFVSSTogICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmluZm9icm8uY29tLw0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KV2lsbGlhbXMsIEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAg ICAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdlIDE1XSANCgxJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCAgICAgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cyAgICAgICAgICBPY3RvYmVyICAyLCAyMDAzDQoNCg0KRnVsbCBDb3B5cmlnaHQgU3RhdGVt ZW50DQogDQogQ29weXJpZ2h0IChDKSBUaGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgU29jaWV0eSAoMjAwMykuICBBbGwg UmlnaHRzDQogUmVzZXJ2ZWQuDQogDQogVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhbmQgdHJhbnNsYXRpb25zIG9m IGl0IG1heSBiZSBjb3BpZWQgYW5kDQogZnVybmlzaGVkIHRvIG90aGVycywgYW5kIGRlcml2YXRp dmUgd29ya3MgdGhhdCBjb21tZW50IG9uIG9yDQogb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGV4cGxhaW4gaXQgb3IgYXNz aXN0IGluIGl0cyBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBtYXkgYmUNCiBwcmVwYXJlZCwgY29waWVkLCBwdWJs aXNoZWQgYW5kIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkLCBpbiB3aG9sZSBvciBpbg0KIHBhcnQsIHdpdGhvdXQgcmVz dHJpY3Rpb24gb2YgYW55IGtpbmQsIHByb3ZpZGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFib3ZlDQogY29weXJpZ2h0 IG5vdGljZSBhbmQgdGhpcyBwYXJhZ3JhcGggYXJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIG9uIGFsbCBzdWNoDQogY29w aWVzIGFuZCBkZXJpdmF0aXZlIHdvcmtzLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBpdHNlbGYg bWF5DQogbm90IGJlIG1vZGlmaWVkIGluIGFueSB3YXksIHN1Y2ggYXMgYnkgcmVtb3ZpbmcgdGhl IGNvcHlyaWdodA0KIG5vdGljZSBvciByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHRvIHRoZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBTb2NpZXR5 IG9yIG90aGVyIEludGVybmV0DQogb3JnYW5pemF0aW9ucywgZXhjZXB0IGFzIG5lZWRlZCBmb3Ig dGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgZGV2ZWxvcGluZw0KIEludGVybmV0IHN0YW5kYXJkcyBpbiB3aGljaCBj YXNlIHRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGZvciBjb3B5cmlnaHRzDQogZGVmaW5lZCBpbiB0aGUgSW50ZXJu ZXQgU3RhbmRhcmRzIHByb2Nlc3MgbXVzdCBiZSBmb2xsb3dlZCwgb3INCiBhcyByZXF1aXJlZCB0 byB0cmFuc2xhdGUgaXQgaW50byBsYW5ndWFnZXMgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiBFbmdsaXNoLg0KIA0KIFRo ZSBsaW1pdGVkIHBlcm1pc3Npb25zIGdyYW50ZWQgYWJvdmUgYXJlIHBlcnBldHVhbCBhbmQgd2ls bA0KIG5vdCBiZSByZXZva2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBTb2NpZXR5IG9yIGl0cyBzdWNjZXNz b3JzIG9yDQogYXNzaWducy4NCiANCiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFuZCB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g Y29udGFpbmVkIGhlcmVpbiBpcyBwcm92aWRlZA0KIG9uIGFuICJBUyBJUyIgYmFzaXMgYW5kIFRI RSBJTlRFUk5FVCBTT0NJRVRZIEFORCBUSEUgSU5URVJORVQNCiBFTkdJTkVFUklORyBUQVNLIEZP UkNFIERJU0NMQUlNUyBBTEwgV0FSUkFOVElFUywgRVhQUkVTUyBPUg0KIElNUExJRUQsIElOQ0xV RElORyBCVVQgTk9UIExJTUlURUQgVE8gQU5ZIFdBUlJBTlRZIFRIQVQgVEhFIFVTRQ0KIE9GIFRI RSBJTkZPUk1BVElPTiBIRVJFSU4gV0lMTCBOT1QgSU5GUklOR0UgQU5ZIFJJR0hUUyBPUiBBTlkN CiBJTVBMSUVEIFdBUlJBTlRJRVMgT0YgTUVSQ0hBTlRBQklMSVRZIE9SIEZJVE5FU1MgRk9SIEEN CiBQQVJUSUNVTEFSIFBVUlBPU0UuDQoNCg0KQWNrbm93bGVkZ2VtZW50cw0KIA0KIEZ1bmRpbmcg Zm9yIHRoZSBSRkMgRWRpdG9yIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBwcm92aWRlZCBieQ0KIHRo ZSBJbnRlcm5ldCBTb2NpZXR5Lg0KDQogVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpbmRpdmlkdWFscyBjb250cmli dXRlZCBzdWJzdGFudGlhbGx5IHRvIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQNCiBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHJlY29n bml6ZWQgZm9yIHRoZWlyIGVmZm9ydHMuICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHdvdWxkIG5vdA0KIGV4aXN0 IHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlaXIgaGVscDoNCg0KIERhdmUgQ3JvY2tlciAgICAgICAgICAgSm9obiBLeW1l ICAgICAgICAgIFt3aWxsaWFtLWF0LWVsYW4ubmV0XQ0KIEFsYW4gRGVLb2sgICAgICAgICAgICAg SiBDIExhd3JlbmNlCSAgIEtlZSBIaW5rbGV5DQogUGhpbGxpcCBIYWxsYW0tQmFrZXIgICBTdGV2 ZW4gRiBTaWlyaWxhICAgWWFrb3YgU2hhZnJhbm92aWNoIA0KIEphc29uIEhpaG4gICAgICAgICAg ICAgQnJhZCBUZW1wbGV0b24gICAgIFBoaWwgTWlsbGVyDQogUGF1bCBKdWRnZSAgICAgICAgICAg ICBKaW0gWW91bGwgICAgICAgICAgUnVzc2VsIEJyYW5kDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KV2lsbGlh bXMsIEUuICAgICAgICAgIEV4cGlyZXM6ICAgQXByaWwgMiwgMjAwMyAgICAgICAgICAgIFtQYWdl IDE2XSANCg== ------=_NextPart_000_01BC2B74.89D1CCC0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 17 21:48:59 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 VAA03097 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAgCs-0006xH-NG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9I1mcAw026732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAgCs-0006x5-Hq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:38 -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 VAA03074 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAgCp-0004Ac-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAgCp-0004AZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAgCH-0006nX-C5; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAgCB-0006nH-Oa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03046 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAgC8-00049y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:52 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAgC8-00049v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:52 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.4] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9I1lpC7013391 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:47:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: To: IRTF ASRG From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: Email Deliverability Summit II Update Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:53:55 +0200 Folks, Found this on the NANOG mailing list. Is this relevant to what we're doing? Do we need to review any of these documents, or should we get in touch with any of these people? >From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." >To: nanog@nanog.org >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:52:10 -0700 >Subject: Email Deliverability Summit II Update > > >I've had so many people over the past few weeks ask me for an update >as to how Email Deliverability Summit II went that I thought I really >ought to at least point to some links, which is exactly what I'm >going to do, in the interest of not taking up list bandwidth. > >In short, it was absolutely amazing. Twenty CEOs or other executive >decision-makers from ISPs, spam-filtering companies, and other email >receivers (some of them on this list), and twenty from large email >sending companies, in a room at a roundtable for 8 solid hours - and >we got a *lot* accomplished. > >Those accomplishments include the promulgation and announcement of 5 >new industry standards for both email senders and receivers (this is >up at http://www.isipp.com/standards.php), the presentation of EDDB - >which is a receivers/senders contact information database (it was >actually Damian's request which reminded me to post about this - EDDB >allows participants to log in and get the appropriate contact >information for the sender or receiver in question - information >about EDDB is at http://www.isipp.com/eddb.php), and the announcement >of a new cross-industry working group - the Email Processing Industry >Alliance (EPIA), which will carry on with the work started at Summits >I and II (if you'd like information about being involved as a >receiver, contact Mark Herrick of RoadRunner at markh@va.rr.com, or >Craig Hughes of SpamAssassin Open Source at craig-hughes@isipp.com; >senders should contact Ian Oxman at oxmani@rappdigital.com). > >Finally, ISIPP announced it's upcoming Spam and the Law conference >(http://www.isipp.com/events.php). > >I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention that independent of >ISIPP I am working on a new email deliverability product which allows >senders and receivers to preauthorize and prevalidate (and even >preschedule) the senders' legitimate bulk mailings. We're currently >in beta, and I'd welcome any of you to participate in the beta test >(which of course is free, and once we get into commercial production >we expect to offer *deep* discounts to beta testers). Anyone who >would like more information should contact me directly. > >Anne > >Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. >President & CEO >Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy > -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 18 11:15:41 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 LAA00856 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAsnX-0002oH-4D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9IFFJiX010798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAsnW-0002o5-Sz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:18 -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 LAA00851 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAsnW-0001tj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAsnV-0001tg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAsnG-0002c6-A9; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AAsnB-0002bE-0P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:57 -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 LAA00838 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAsnA-0001td-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:56 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AAsn9-0001ta-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:55 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2979777; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:52 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Brad Knowles From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Email Deliverability Summit II Update Cc: IRTF 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: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:14:41 -0400 At 11:53 PM +0200 10/17/03, Brad Knowles wrote: >Folks, > > Found this on the NANOG mailing list. Is this relevant to >what we're doing? Do we need to review any of these documents, or >should we get in touch with any of these people? I was at Summit II, as were at least a few other people on this list. If you look at ASRG's work as a way of reducing the noise of spam, than I'd say that Summit II was working on increasing the signal strength of legitimate bulk mail. There are some good guidelines that came out of it in terms of proper handling of 5xx SMTP errors, proper errors to send when you are rejecting someone because you believe they are spamming, and proper use of unsubscription headers. There is nothing earth shattering, but they are simple steps that should make it easier to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 19 22:47:03 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 WAA27331 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ49-0003AS-U2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9K2kfHU012171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ49-0003AE-NB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:41 -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 WAA27305 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ46-0002zM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ45-0002zI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ3U-000322-Uv; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ2n-0002v5-E4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:45:17 -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 WAA27268 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ2j-0002yP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:45:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ2j-0002yI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:45:13 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-182.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.218.197]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HN1002A2BMF31@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:44:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 7. BCP (was Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Email Deliverability Summit II Update) In-reply-to: To: Brad Knowles Cc: IRTF ASRG Message-id: <3F934C13.6060400@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 19 Oct 2003 22:44:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I took a look at some of the links - it sounds like a bunch of BCP stuff. Perhaps some of this should be incorporated. As for the contact database, this is a separate issue. Yakov Brad Knowles wrote: > Folks, > > Found this on the NANOG mailing list. Is this relevant to what > we're doing? Do we need to review any of these documents, or should we > get in touch with any of these people? > >> From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:52:10 -0700 >> Subject: Email Deliverability Summit II Update >> >> >> I've had so many people over the past few weeks ask me for an update >> as to how Email Deliverability Summit II went that I thought I really >> ought to at least point to some links, which is exactly what I'm >> going to do, in the interest of not taking up list bandwidth. >> >> In short, it was absolutely amazing. Twenty CEOs or other executive >> decision-makers from ISPs, spam-filtering companies, and other email >> receivers (some of them on this list), and twenty from large email >> sending companies, in a room at a roundtable for 8 solid hours - and >> we got a *lot* accomplished. >> >> Those accomplishments include the promulgation and announcement of 5 >> new industry standards for both email senders and receivers (this is >> up at http://www.isipp.com/standards.php), the presentation of EDDB - >> which is a receivers/senders contact information database (it was >> actually Damian's request which reminded me to post about this - EDDB >> allows participants to log in and get the appropriate contact >> information for the sender or receiver in question - information >> about EDDB is at http://www.isipp.com/eddb.php), and the announcement >> of a new cross-industry working group - the Email Processing Industry >> Alliance (EPIA), which will carry on with the work started at Summits >> I and II (if you'd like information about being involved as a >> receiver, contact Mark Herrick of RoadRunner at markh@va.rr.com, or >> Craig Hughes of SpamAssassin Open Source at craig-hughes@isipp.com; >> senders should contact Ian Oxman at oxmani@rappdigital.com). >> >> Finally, ISIPP announced it's upcoming Spam and the Law conference >> (http://www.isipp.com/events.php). >> >> I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention that independent of >> ISIPP I am working on a new email deliverability product which allows >> senders and receivers to preauthorize and prevalidate (and even >> preschedule) the senders' legitimate bulk mailings. We're currently >> in beta, and I'd welcome any of you to participate in the beta test >> (which of course is free, and once we get into commercial production >> we expect to offer *deep* discounts to beta testers). Anyone who >> would like more information should contact me directly. >> >> Anne >> >> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. >> President & CEO >> Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 19 22:50:24 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 WAA27410 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ7R-0004BJ-2Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9K2o5R3016074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ7Q-0004Av-KX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:04 -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 WAA27385 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ7N-00030x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ7M-00030u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ7O-000459-5K; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABQ6q-0003uN-Km for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:49:28 -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 WAA27375 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ6n-00030n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:49:25 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABQ6m-00030d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:49:24 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-182.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.218.197]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HN10024RBTF31@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:48:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F934D10.9020300@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Welcome to the ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:48:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Welcome to the mailing list of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This message is sent out to the mailing list at regular intervals in order to remind group members and inform newcomers about various aspects of the ASRG. In addition to this message, additional messages will be sent on a regular basis providing updates on work items and summarizing mailing list discussions. 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS. o There are still many open items on the research agenda not been taken care of. WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to take care of things, if you would like to help please post to the list or contact the chair off-list. o All suggestions on how to improve the group are welcome, please email us! 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ASRG. The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam. The purpose of the ASRG is to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively PROPOSE and EVALUATE solutions to the problem.The ASRG is part of the IRTF. The IRTF focuses on longer term research issues related to the Internet while the parallel organization, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), focuses on the shorter term issues of engineering and standards making. The operations of the IRTF and its research groups are discussed in detail in RFC 2014 (BCP 8). 2. INTERIM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_ipr_policy.htm). "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties." 3. MAILING LIST INFORMATION AND POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm). If you want to change your mailing list options, please visit the mailing list page at (https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). If the volume of messages is too high for you, you can choose to receive a daily digest of list messages instead of individual posts. All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work items outlined in the ASRG Research Agenda document. 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. NOTE: The moderator or chair may at their discretion moderate posting privileges of participants who ignore these guidelines. If they do so they will announce the fact to the list, with an explanation. 4. ASRG RESEARCH AGENDA (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm). The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. The Research Agenda lists different areas of research that the ASRG is pursuing. 5. ASRG WORK ITEM STATUS (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm). This lists the current work items showing owner and status. Each item also shows the associated item number from the research agenda. 6. MAIN ASRG PLAYERS. Paul Judge - ASRG Co-Chair Yakov Shafranovich - ASRG Co-Chair 7. IMPORTANT LINKS. ASRG charter - http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Official ASRG website - http://www.irtf.org/asrg Mailing list options - https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Mailing list archive - https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html Search engine for the archive - http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg IRTF website - http://www.irtf.org IETF website - http://www.ietf.org IAB website - http://www.iab.org RFC 2014 (BCP 8) - ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2014.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 05:57:17 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 FAA11782 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABtG6-0003dG-DO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9L9uwVo013958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABtG6-0003d3-1G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:58 -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 FAA11773 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABtG2-0001iZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABtG1-0001iV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABtFC-0003Lb-1i; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABtEp-0003GM-Ck for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:55:39 -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 FAA11754 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABtEl-0001hb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:55:35 -0400 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABtEk-0001hY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:55:35 -0400 Received: from [158.125.1.221] (helo=magic.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ABtEl-0002gO-I3 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:55:35 +0100 Received: from apache by magic.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1ABtEl-0005Uy-Cl for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:55:35 +0100 Received: from cpc3-shep1-3-0-cust92.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc3-shep1-3-0-cust92.nott.cable.ntl.com [81.98.154.92]) by student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1066730135.3f95029759cc4@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 81.98.154.92 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1ABtEl-0002gO-I3*M.nMDtCXCus* X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:55:35 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - E-mail use case scenarios Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Oct 2003 10:55:35 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everyone Here is my first attempt at the e-mail use cases: http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf I would appreciate any comments or suggestions for things to add. At the moment it's divided into end-to-end scenarios and point-to point ones in order to reduce the number of permutations. Ideas for how to organise the scenarios would also be appreciated. Many thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 09:43:35 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 JAA17393 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABwn5-0006T2-ML for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LDhFmA024856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABwn5-0006Sp-Ic for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:15 -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 JAA17382 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABwn3-0003YP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABwn3-0003YM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABwmr-0006Op-KN; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABwmb-0006MO-Qf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:42:45 -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 JAA17375 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABwma-0003YE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:42:44 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABwmZ-0003Xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:42:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "denny " Reply-To: X-Sender: To: X-Mailer: Subject: [Asrg] 0. General Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Oct 2003 09:43:39 -0400 Hello everyone! I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing.... I am new here and in the process of reading the papers I have found and learining the "rules" for the whole IETF deal. let me start by saying a few things about my background as it relates to my view on the whole "SPAM" subject. I have been using computers and networks for at least 15 years, my first networks were NOVELL Lans and the local schools. in the mid-to-late90's I was working in Califonia for an ISP where in 3 years we went from about 2,000 customers to over 30,000. along the way growing the email system was a major challenge as traffic grew. now I am more in the database applications side of things than the network side of it but have done some of everything. I have done a lot of work with RADIUS to create SQL databases to record and search for IP useage ... sometimes it was needed to locate crooks. I am not generaly in favor of "more goverment" but belive that some laws will be needed to help controll spam. Ok .... on with some comments that might count: some things I belive at this time are: 1) make the sender "Pay Postage" will get us further than trying to filter the junk / spam. 2) the SMTP email system needs to get modified to make forgery of headers very difficult. 3) common practice, the law and the SMTP software need to make "accountability" a requirement not an option. 4) as has been stated elsewhere: classifing "SPAM" via program is difficult and requires constant adaptation. 5) the problem is as much , perhaps mostly an issue of total traffic volume and the burden it puts on the whole community. 6) the traffic and related handling of it costs us real money. 7) today the recipent bears the cost of the unwanted traffic. does anyone belive that the 7 points are wrong? if my points are right then I would say that fighting an up-hill battle over classifiying spam which is technicaly very difficult and will never really be possible in our lifetimes unless we develop some very major computer AI systems is almost a waste of our time. Instead I would say that we should shift the effort to the elements of the network and it's infrastructure that we can manage effectivly and then come back to the issues of "SPAM Vs. HAM" later on. I would say that if we add accountability to SMTP and make it difficult if not impossible for the orginator to "Hide" and also perhaps make it a criminal issue when an originator attemtps to misdirect the reciver then we will be much closer to winning the spam wars. I would adopt to some degree the model used by phone companies, when the originator sends more traffic to the reciver then the orginiator pays the reciver a fee based on the units sent. the fee can be small for each message. why I feel this is the right way to go: 1) it would motivate each mail system operator to care about the volume of traffic they generate. 2) it would shift the burden of generating high outbound traffic back to the orginating party. 3) it woulf give the "victims" funds to pay for the exess unwanted traffic. 4) it would shift the legal stance on dealing with the problem as follows: it is difficult to create a solid legal definition of "SPAM" and due to the inherent subjective nature of any definition leaves room for argument. also if we try to "Block SPAM" or "Outlaw SPAM" then they can claim unfair restraint , bias , censorship and so on. if we move to a business accounting basis then there can be no argument that the process is unfair. you have to "Pay your bills" if you want to use the network. and if you do not pay your bills then you can't keep ending me traffic. and thats not a "Blacklist" it's not "Censorship" and so on.... it's basic legal business practice. I would say the the effect of this would be to reduce the total SPAM by a huge amount. it would force the hidden relays, the forged headers and other garbage to stop or slow to a crawl. then the reciver would know who sent them the ad for whatever and be able to complain to them directly. and the indiviudal would have a much simpler time banning the senders. the real chalenge with this approach would be getting the right kinds of laws / regulations in place to allow a victim to make thier case. but that issue is there now... but due to the lack of accountability and the ease of email forgery it places a heavy burden on the victim. well what do you think? -- ============================================= Denny Figuerres Denny@Figuerres.com --------------------------------------------- Twenty billion junk e-mail messages sent per day may potentially take 20 billion seconds to delete. A human life is a mere two billion seconds long. In effect, spammers kill ten people each day. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 11:14:47 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 LAA22776 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AByDL-0006Au-4G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LFERkI023732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AByDK-0006Ah-VL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:27 -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 LAA22728 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AByDI-0004q4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AByDI-0004q1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AByCv-0005vv-T2; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AByCp-0005uU-Is for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22717 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AByCo-0004pK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AByCn-0004oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:54 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-901.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.252]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HN400E0F4Y1SZ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:13:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General In-reply-to: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> To: denny@figuerres.com Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3F954D08.2070902@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.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: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:13:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT denny wrote: > Hello everyone! > I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing.... > I am new here and in the process of reading the papers I have found and learining the "rules" for the whole IETF deal. let me start by saying a few things about my background as it relates to my view on the whole "SPAM" subject. > Hi Danny and welcome to the ASRG. > I have been using computers and networks for at least 15 years, my first networks were NOVELL Lans and the local schools. in the mid-to-late90's I was working in Califonia for an ISP where in 3 years we went from about 2,000 customers to over 30,000. along the way growing the email system was a major challenge as traffic grew. > > now I am more in the database applications side of things than the network side of it but have done some of everything. I have done a lot of work with RADIUS to create SQL databases to record and search for IP useage ... sometimes it was needed to locate crooks. > > I am not generaly in favor of "more goverment" but belive that some laws will be needed to help controll spam. > > Ok .... on with some comments that might count: > > > some things I belive at this time are: > > 1) make the sender "Pay Postage" will get us further than trying to filter the junk / spam. There are scaling and other implementation problems with e-postage which must be solved before its implemented. See the following: http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html#bad > 2) the SMTP email system needs to get modified to make forgery of headers very difficult. > 3) common practice, the law and the SMTP software need to make "accountability" a requirement not an option. Installed base makes it very hard PLUS anonimity is an issue. See the following document: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt > 4) as has been stated elsewhere: classifing "SPAM" via program is difficult and requires constant adaptation. Correct. > 5) the problem is as much , perhaps mostly an issue of total traffic volume and the burden it puts on the whole community. > 6) the traffic and related handling of it costs us real money. > 7) today the recipent bears the cost of the unwanted traffic. This is outlined in our charter as well. > > does anyone belive that the 7 points are wrong? > > > if my points are right then I would say that fighting an up-hill battle over classifiying spam which is technicaly very difficult and will never really be possible in our lifetimes unless we develop some very major computer AI systems is almost a waste of our time. > > Instead I would say that we should shift the effort to the elements of the network and it's infrastructure that we can manage effectivly and then come back to the issues of "SPAM Vs. HAM" later on. > > I would say that if we add accountability to SMTP and make it difficult if not impossible for the orginator to "Hide" and also perhaps make it a criminal issue when an originator attemtps to misdirect the reciver then we will be much closer to winning the spam wars. > > I would adopt to some degree the model used by phone companies, when the originator sends more traffic to the reciver then the orginiator pays the reciver a fee based on the units sent. > > the fee can be small for each message. From the technical considerations document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt): " The idea of replacing SMTP is appealing because it permits thinking in terms of creating an infrastructure that has accountability and restrictions built in. Unfortunately an installed base the size of the Internet is not likely to make such a change anytime soon. It seems far more likely that successful spam control mechanisms will be introduced as increments to the existing Internet mail service. Moreover, the feature of SMTP that is most responsible for spam is the ability to receive mail from strangers. Without this feature, there would be no flood of spam, but many of the most valuable Internet commercial and individual activities would also be impossible. Replacing SMTP with a protocol that allows strangers to send each other mail would not stop spam any more than SMTP-AUTH stopped spam, contrary to insistent claims to the contrary, before SMTP-AUTH became widely available and used. " and: " 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. " > > why I feel this is the right way to go: > > 1) it would motivate each mail system operator to care about the volume of traffic they generate. > 2) it would shift the burden of generating high outbound traffic back to the orginating party. > 3) it woulf give the "victims" funds to pay for the exess unwanted traffic. > 4) it would shift the legal stance on dealing with the problem as follows: it is difficult to create a solid legal definition of "SPAM" and due to the inherent subjective nature of any definition leaves room for argument. also if we try to "Block SPAM" or "Outlaw SPAM" then they can claim unfair restraint , bias , censorship and so on. if we move to a business accounting basis then there can be no argument that the process is unfair. you have to "Pay your bills" if you want to use the network. and if you do not pay your bills then you can't keep ending me traffic. and thats not a "Blacklist" it's not "Censorship" and so on.... it's basic legal business practice. E-postage has problems which must be solved first. > > I would say the the effect of this would be to reduce the total SPAM by a huge amount. > > it would force the hidden relays, the forged headers and other garbage to stop or slow to a crawl. There are other mechnanisms such as RMX, etc. which allow authentication for servers as opposed to individual clients, and tend to stop relays and hijacked home computers. There is a currently a small sub-group working on reconciling several RMX proposals, but than again implementation will be difficult. > > then the reciver would know who sent them the ad for whatever and be able to complain to them directly. and the indiviudal would have a much simpler time banning the senders. > > the real chalenge with this approach would be getting the right kinds of laws / regulations in place to allow a victim to make thier case. but that issue is there now... but due to the lack of accountability and the ease of email forgery it places a heavy burden on the victim. > > well what do you think? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 12:42:23 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 MAA25722 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABza7-0004eN-Iw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:42:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LGg3CA017869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:42:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABza7-0004e8-EZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25715 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABza5-0005o5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABza5-0005o2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 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 1ABzZ9-0004Lc-4t; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:41:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ABzYG-0003wZ-Rg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:40:08 -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 MAA25663 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABzYF-0005mr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:40:07 -0400 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABzYA-0005mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:40:03 -0400 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LGcmDc000379 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:39:25 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.2.102]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003102112101109:808 ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:10:11 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General In-Reply-To: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> References: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/21/2003 12:10:11 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/21/2003 02:45:17 PM, Serialize complete at 10/21/2003 02:45:17 PM 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, 21 Oct 2003 12:02:33 -0200 At 21/10/2003 11:43 Tuesday, you wrote: >Hello everyone! >I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing.... Welcome and go ahead :) >some things I belive at this time are: > >1) make the sender "Pay Postage" will get us further than trying to >filter the junk / spam. >2) the SMTP email system needs to get modified to make forgery of headers >very difficult. >3) common practice, the law and the SMTP software need to make >"accountability" a requirement not an option. >4) as has been stated elsewhere: classifing "SPAM" via program is >difficult and requires constant adaptation. >5) the problem is as much , perhaps mostly an issue of total traffic >volume and the burden it puts on the whole community. >6) the traffic and related handling of it costs us real money. >7) today the recipent bears the cost of the unwanted traffic. > >does anyone belive that the 7 points are wrong? Personally I dont agree with 1, 5 and 7. 1) that changes the whole concept of internet mail. 5) mail traffic may be heavy but that is not really the concern of most network operators given the current traffic produced by P2P and "multi-media" 7) that actually makes up only a very small part of the cost, when you define recipient as "end-user" instead of "the organization to which the recipient belongs" >1) it would motivate each mail system operator to care about the volume of >traffic they generate. >2) it would shift the burden of generating high outbound traffic back to >the orginating party. >3) it woulf give the "victims" funds to pay for the exess unwanted traffic. >4) it would shift the legal stance on dealing with the problem as follows: >it is difficult to create a solid legal definition of "SPAM" and due to >the inherent subjective nature of any definition leaves room for argument. >also if we try to "Block SPAM" or "Outlaw SPAM" then they can claim unfair >restraint , bias , censorship and so on. if we move to a business >accounting basis then there can be no argument that the process is unfair. >you have to "Pay your bills" if you want to use the network. and if you do >not pay your bills then you can't keep ending me traffic. and thats not a >"Blacklist" it's not "Censorship" and so on.... it's basic legal business >practice. How does your approach deal with hijacked computers and the like? Make the computer owner pay? (Probably not even a bad idea, people would start to care what is running on their computers.) Cheers Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 14:27:30 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 OAA29295 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1Dq-0000vf-Qm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LIRAMR003565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1Dq-0000vQ-Mh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:10 -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 OAA29289 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1Dn-0007Bv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1Dn-0007Bs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1Dg-0000rj-Pe; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1D6-0000lU-Gf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:24 -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 OAA29245 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1D3-0007Av-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:21 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1D3-0007AP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:21 -0400 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.25] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id AA4A135B0094; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:18 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "Asrg" Subject: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <000001c39800$a4417100$19602241@viper1> 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 V6.00.2800.1165 X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (324731028) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (324731028) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Oct 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the links and input.... A few comments on the comments so far. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:13 AM > To: denny@figuerres.com > Cc: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General > > > denny wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing.... .... > > some things I belive at this time are: > > > > 1) make the sender "Pay Postage" will get us further than > trying to > > filter the junk / spam. > > There are scaling and other implementation problems with > e-postage which > must be solved before its implemented. See the following: > > http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html#bad > I agree there are issues with the "postage" model. But I think unless some other means is found we will have to go that way. > > 2) the SMTP email system needs to get modified to make forgery of > > headers very difficult. > > 3) common practice, the law and the SMTP software need to > make "accountability" a requirement not an option. > > Installed base makes it very hard PLUS anonimity is an issue. See the > following document: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techcon > sider-02.txt > I am reading the documents as fast as I can between work and other stuff.... Just let me ay this: Anonimity: as far as I am concerned if someone wants me to recive a message they should be willing to identify them selves. This does not mean you can not recive an email from an "unknown" party, but it does mean that I should be able to read a valid Email header that is not lying to me. > > 4) as has been stated elsewhere: classifing "SPAM" via program is > > difficult and requires constant adaptation. > > Correct. ... > > > > the fee can be small for each message. > > From the technical considerations document > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techco > nsider-02.txt): > > I agree... No way can we just drop SMTP and cut over. We have to add some new features one at a time and build. > There are other mechnanisms such as RMX, etc. which allow > authentication > for servers as opposed to individual clients, and tend to stop relays > and hijacked home computers. There is a currently a small sub-group > working on reconciling several RMX proposals, but than again > implementation will be difficult. > Great! That's something that I will look at. While I used the term "Postage" I guess I should clarify how I have used it. What I envision is primarily an "Operator to operator" payment process. Where the operator can set local policy on how and when to collect fees from local users if and when needed. Keep the addon cost very low to invisible to the "average user" A sliding scale for example where 1-10 messages are free / cheap for john doe But 10,000 messges cost Mr. SPAM some real cash. I *THINK* a server validation / authentication could be added to SMTP with only a small impact by and large. We do DNS lookups at that point already, just add some form of pulic key type of process and we could have the basis for an audit-trail. Back to the anonimity subject: When email started is was all based on trust. And email moved with little or no "filtering" or interception. Today we are going in a dierection I find frankly frightening and like a "Goerge Orwell / 1984" model If we keep adding mail filtering and scanning it then does raise the specter of "Big Brother" in to many ways to count. If we tell the public and the government that filtering and scanning is good then how can we cry foul when they want to tap in and monitor the flow for "Security" and "Child Porn" and "State secrets" ??? And might our work to develop anti-spam methods be turned into some project to further take anonimity from all our communications?? That is one of the resons why I feel that at it's core the "filter" method is the wrong approach. Enable the user to make the "Value Judjments" on the content .... Let the "Operator" only deal with managing the network and not with becoming an "Editor". _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 14:43:37 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 OAA29870 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1TS-0005Eh-Tg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LIhI68020121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1TS-0005ES-Pl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:18 -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 OAA29860 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1TQ-0007OB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1TP-0007O8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1TA-00057g-UX; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC1SI-0004zZ-JH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:42:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29816 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1SF-0007N9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:42:03 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC1SF-0007Ma-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:42:03 -0400 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.25] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id ADF6D630078; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:41:58 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "Asrg" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> 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: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (224591992) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (224591992) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Oct 2003 14:40:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andreas Saurwein > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:03 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General > > > At 21/10/2003 11:43 Tuesday, you wrote: > >Hello everyone! > >I have a lot to say and I hope it's worth hearing.... > > Welcome and go ahead :) > > >not pay your bills then you can't keep ending me traffic. > and thats not a > >"Blacklist" it's not "Censorship" and so on.... it's basic > legal business > >practice. > > How does your approach deal with hijacked computers and the > like? Make the > computer owner pay? (Probably not even a bad idea, people > would start to > care what is running on their computers.) > ..... Well I am thinking of a few things... I just got a reply that mentioned "RMX" which sounds close to what I am thinking. Perhaps a DNS type of approach that requires an SMTP server to be "Verified" And if you are a customer of an ISP other other service operator then you should be using their SMTP server to reach other SMTP servers. (yes that's a relay, but a closed relay supervised by the ISP -- the network operator keeping the chain of accountablity in tact) Some of this can be done by the operators blocking outbound SMTP .... Kinda draconian but it would cut back on "Rouge Servers" And if you want to run a server you shuld not have a fit over having to tell your ISP and agree that you will be accountable for any damges you cause. In many ways I'd take the SSL model, I will exchange trusted data only with a partner I can verify as "reputable". So if some worm go in and hijacked some Windows / Linux PC and started to try and blast out spam it would fail unless they could hack the fire wall and the public key / trust database. If done right the PC user would get a call from the local ISP telling them to fix the computer ASAP and take it off the net. > Cheers > Andreas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 15:20:37 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 PAA02508 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC23E-0006X7-9v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LJKGX7025109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC23D-0006Wm-Tv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:15 -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 PAA02475 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC23C-00004H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC23C-000049-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC230-0006QT-Cs; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC22K-00069M-8v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:19:20 -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 PAA02438 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC22I-00003o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:19:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC22I-000039-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:19:18 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-901.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.252]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HN400GUWGB8ZY@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:18:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F958693.2010202@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Informal Physical Meetings Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Oct 2003 15:18:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, As mentioned some time ago, Paul Judge is attending the ISP Con conference this week in Santa Clara, CA and I will be attending the Open Group Messaging Forum tomorrow in Vienna, VA. Anyone interested in having an informal ASRG get-together is more than welcome - just approach us at the meeting. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 21 22:40:48 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 WAA24511 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC8vF-0006ua-OI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9M2eTIL026564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC8vF-0006uN-Kn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:29 -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 WAA24508 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC8vC-0006o7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC8vB-0006o3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:40:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AC8uo-0006oX-Vz; Tue, 21 Oct 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 1AC8uX-0006lX-Lv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24489 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC8uU-0006ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:42 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AC8uI-0006nZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:30 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip237-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.237]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FC2236928 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:23 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022023922.GC733@m433> References: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310210943.AA304414868@mail.figuerres.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:39:23 -0400 On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:43:39AM -0400, denny wrote > I am not generaly in favor of "more goverment" but belive that some > laws will be needed to help controll spam. [...major snippage...] > the real chalenge with this approach would be getting the right kinds > of laws / regulations in place to allow a victim to make thier case. > but that issue is there now... but due to the lack of accountability > and the ease of email forgery it places a heavy burden on the victim. > > well what do you think? There are *ALREADY* enough laws in place that *IF THEY WERE ENFORCED* would end the spam problems we now face. There are already laws against - hijacking computers - selling controlled drugs without a doctor's prescription (and prescribing controlled drugs without a physical visit from the patient) - pump-n-dump stock scams - Nigerian 419 scams - theft of cable-TV services - selling pirated computer programs - forged headers (in some jurisdictions only) etc, etc, etc. Police forces usually won't get involved unless actual damages exceed $50,000. Passing additional laws simply means that even more laws won't get enforced. -- 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 Oct 21 23:52:49 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 XAA26263 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACA2s-0005ci-H5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9M3qQRJ021610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACA2s-0005cT-B0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:26 -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 XAA26253 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACA2q-0007QN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACA2p-0007QI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACA2S-0005Oh-OC; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACA1r-0005IX-5O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:51:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26217 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACA1o-0007PO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:51:20 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACA1n-0007PL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:51:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 76119 invoked by uid 1013); 22 Oct 2003 03:51:17 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Denny Figuerres Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 22 Oct 2003 05:51:17 +0200 On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:40:41PM -0400, Denny Figuerres wrote: > Well I am thinking of a few things... I just got a reply that mentioned > "RMX" which sounds close to what I am thinking. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-01.txt http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-vixie-repudiating-mail-from.txt http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt http://nospam.couchpotato.net/ Choose one. They all break all sorts of existing Internet mail structure like oversized DNS packets or totally breaking forwards. > And if you are a customer of an ISP other other service operator then > you should be using their SMTP server to reach other SMTP servers. And that does help what? I have cleaned out the mailqueue of one of our mailservers on Satuerday of > 4000 messages that still stuck after 2 hours response time and where injected via a hacked Win2000 server at a customers authentifying via SMTP AUTH. > (yes that's a relay, but a closed relay supervised by the ISP -- the > network operator keeping the chain of accountablity in tact) Accountability for what? They did not do it and being to fscking braindead to maintain a computer connected to the Internet is not a criminal act that will get you your head chopped off. It's a "unlucky thing" that happens to everyone. So no judge will prosecute you for that. The customer pays the traffic and if we're really lucky he'll pay the 1.5 hours techsupport. If we have bad luck he'll terminate contract because I shut him off for the weekend and we presume to have him pay for something e did not do. > And if you want to run a server you shuld not have a fit over having to > tell your ISP and agree that you will be accountable for any damges you > cause. You have two major problems: could/should and internationalization. The Internet is a commercial net for quite some time and the "grey guys" make their money with the fact that they are less restrictive than the "white guys". As long as there are enough "grey guys" you can't get rid of the easily because maybe some big companies are their customers. So strongly being a "good guy" mainly brings bankruptcy these days, as you lose customers. So this could/should is something we are all aware but nobody can enforce it. This is true even more as the Internet is a worldwide net and lots of countries have lots of different legislation. > In many ways I'd take the SSL model, I will exchange trusted data only > with a partner I can verify as "reputable". Please define how the transition period will work. Please define who to enforce the SSL model. > If done right the PC user would get a call from the local ISP telling > them to fix the computer ASAP and take it off the net. Big deal. Our bandwidth/port scan monitors show this already and we call the customers. How long can you have some support personnel on phone to help a luser that can just find the PowerOn button and has no ideas of antivirus and that pays 10 USD/month. How much of them (support and lusers) can you afford? I was idealistic 20 years ago, and even 5 years ago, but it looks like reality has me in its claws now ... \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 Oct 22 00:10:32 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 AAA26769 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACAK3-0002E1-E5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9M4ABfE008543 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACAK3-0002Di-99 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26763 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACAK0-0007YN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACAK0-0007YK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACAJt-00028b-GF; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACAJe-00024S-P2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26740 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACAJc-0007Y7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:44 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACAJb-0007Y4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:43 -0400 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h9M49hG0028905 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:43 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h9M49hMA028904; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:43 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:09:43 -0400 On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:51:17AM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:40:41PM -0400, Denny Figuerres wrote: > > Well I am thinking of a few things... I just got a reply that mentioned > > "RMX" which sounds close to what I am thinking. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-04.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-02.txt > http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-vixie-repudiating-mail-from.txt > http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt > http://nospam.couchpotato.net/ > > Choose one. They all break all sorts of existing Internet mail structure > like oversized DNS packets or totally breaking forwards. As one of the authors of DRIP, I protest. it does not break anything. it simply allows a site to check the validity of a connection coming from IP x.y.z.t and claiming to be mail.gamerz.net on the EHLO line It's not much of an anti-spam widget, but it is very useful for the malware virii that are wreaking such havoc on the net these days. e.g. as the owner of gamerz.net, I can specify in simple DNS A records that play.gamerz.net MUST be coming from 66.92.144.25 *.ipv4.relays._email_.play.gamerz.net. IN A 0.0.0.0 66_92_144_25.ipv4.relays._email_.play.gamerz.net. IN A 66.92.144.25 in addition, I can prevent any other use of anything ending in gamerz.net with the setting up of *.ipv4.relays._email_.gamerz.net. IN A 0.0.0.0 So now, a site using an MTA that is DRIP aware, gets HELO command claiming to be play.gamerz.net... if the IP is NOT 66.92.144.25, you can reject the msg (or use that info as part of your scoring or whatever). If you get a connection from foobar.gamerz.net, you'll lookup x_y_z_t.ipv4.relays._email_.foobar.gamerz.net and get NXDOMAIN one thing the draft recommends is that you strip the leading domain part and try again (in an effort to see if the domain supports DRIP at all) This time you'd look for x_y_z_t.ipv4.relays._email_.gamerz.net and get back 0.0.0.0. This tells you that gamerz.net support DRIP and that the HELO argument as stated is bogus. And remember, I'm not specifying that mail from rrognlie@gamerz.net has to come from "the" gamerz.net RMX... just taht the HELO line claiming to be play.gamerz.net (my MTA) must be the specified IP (or one of the specified IPs). So, we don't break forwarding at all. And I've been having quite good luck with blocking all kinds of mail directed at my domain claiming a HELO line of my domain (when the IPs in question have absolutely nothing to do with me). The miltered version of DRIP is available at ftp://ftp.gamerz.net/pub/dripmilter.pl -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Oracle Prophet / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | \__/ | CAUTION: may contain Mature material......but I doubt it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 01:13:40 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 BAA27909 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACBJ6-0005aV-Kt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9M5DG3C021471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACBJ6-0005aD-EW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27895 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACBJ3-00009M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACBJ3-00009J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACBIq-0005RC-NU; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACBIQ-0005JF-Rm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:12:34 -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 BAA27864 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACBIN-00008v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:12:31 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACBIN-00008s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:12:31 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3000110; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:12:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Denny Figuerres , 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: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:11:59 -0400 At 5:51 AM +0200 10/22/03, Markus Stumpf wrote: >The Internet is a commercial net for quite some time and the "grey guys" >make their money with the fact that they are less restrictive than the >"white guys". As long as there are enough "grey guys" you can't get rid >of the easily because maybe some big companies are their customers. Ran into a recent example of this. There's a guy sitting on Level3's network (name and address available upon request :-). He does bulk mail delivery for porn sites. I actually don't consider him a particularly bad spammer. I suspect they just give him the list and he delivers. He is, however, a very bad coder. When faced with the fact that some servers return 5xx errors on account full, he decided to ignore all 5xx errors. That's right. He just completely ignores them. But the real killer is that if you give him a 5xx at connect time and then close the connection, his software thinks it got a network error and immediately retries the connection... a lot... frequently. I was getting slammed with half a million connection attempts in the period of a few hours. Repeated every 12 to 24 hours. Despite the fact that we'd immediately close them, it was saturating a 768kbs DSL line. The only way I managed to get Level3's attention was that I didn't mention the word spam. I billed it as what it in essence was... a DoS attack. It took a week to get them to respond. They claim to be talking to him about the problem. Then again, he claimed to me he would stop sending my domain email and he didn't, so who knows. I seriously doubt they'll throw the guy off their network. He's paying for some serious bandwidth. He's got dozens of machines delivering email, and he's been on the SpamHaus list for at least a year. Welcome to the gray market of email hosting. In an ideal world you'd tell the guy to get off the network until he cleaned up his act. But it's not an ideal world. Of course, on the hardcore spammer side, we have things that are really serious DoS attacks. I saw mail this evening from a site admin who got hit with a dictionary attack. 12-15,000 messages per hour over a 12 hour period, coming from over 61,000 different IP addresses. And at the end of the 12 hours, the volume suddenly doubled to 30,000 messages per hour. After trying to deal with that for a while the domain owner gave up and removed the A record for the domain that was being attacked. Fortunately that was an option. Ironically the domain being attacked had no valid email addresses, although the server hosted other domains that did. The subject of the spam? Ads for anti-spam software. 61,000 machines engaged in a coordinated spam attack on a single machine. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 22 09:53:06 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 JAA08795 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJPq-0005Bl-R0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MDqkB9019935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJPq-0005BR-GQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:46 -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 JAA08768 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJPn-0005PJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJPn-0005PF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJP7-0004xB-Kh; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJOT-0004nq-35 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:51:21 -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 JAA08677 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJOR-0005NH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:51:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJOQ-0005NC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:51:18 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3001157 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:51:14 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - AT&T Whitelists 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, 22 Oct 2003 09:50:59 -0400 I assume some people on this list have seen this. Corporate AT&T is attempting to switch to IP whitelisting. Not on the whitelist, you can't send them email. http://www.sosdg.org/attmail.html -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 22 10:03:31 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 KAA09509 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJZv-0007O7-Cq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9ME3Bv3028393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJZv-0007Ns-7K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:11 -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 KAA09487 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJZt-0005d4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJZs-0005d1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJZl-0007Io-O0; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACJZ7-0007Af-BC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:02:21 -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 KAA09462 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJZ5-0005ch-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:02:19 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJZ4-0005ce-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:02:18 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h9ME1VJ9027336 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:01:32 -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 h9ME1Kcc027217; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:01:28 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - AT&T Whitelists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 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: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:56:00 -0400 (EDT) The letter is quite confused, but read closely, and applying some common sense, it looks like they are building a list of smtp servers in ATT address space, or address space served by AT&T as the ISP, and that only those servers will be allowed to SEND smtp mail via port 25. So unless ATTBI is your ISP, you are unaffected, except to the extent that this reduces spam from ATTBI sources. On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I assume some people on this list have seen this. > Corporate AT&T is attempting to switch to IP whitelisting. Not on > the whitelist, you can't send them email. > > http://www.sosdg.org/attmail.html > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense > 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 Wed Oct 22 10:25:49 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 KAA11622 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJvP-0004BJ-9M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MEPNGd016071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJvO-0004B4-D5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:22 -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 KAA11587 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJvM-0005u0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJvL-0005tt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJv3-00043y-Ve; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACJuH-0003uN-Qx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:24:14 -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 KAA11494 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJuF-0005sS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACJuF-0005sM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3001243; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:24:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Daniel Feenberg From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - AT&T Whitelists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:21:04 -0400 Re: [Asrg] 0. General - AT&T Whitelists
At 9:56 AM -0400 10/22/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
The letter is quite confused, but read closely, and applying some common
sense, it looks like they are building a list of smtp servers in ATT
address space, or address space served by AT&T as the ISP, and that only
those servers will be allowed to SEND smtp mail via port 25. So unless
ATTBI is your ISP, you are unaffected, except to the extent that this
reduces spam from ATTBI sources.

First of all, it's corporate AT&T, not ATTBI (which is now Comcast anyway).  But no, I don't think so.  Some people have raised that point on Nanog, but there's no confirmation.  And other's are claiming that they already can't send mail to AT&T proper.  Also, note this line:

What AT&T is asking is for you to help AT&T to restrict incoming mail
to just our known and trusted sources (e.g., business partners, clients
and customers).

--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/         Next Generation Spam Defense
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 Oct 22 13:17:31 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 NAA18283 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMbb-0005qL-W2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MHH7KD022457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMbb-0005q8-Od for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18266 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMbZ-00009v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMbZ-00009s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:17:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMaY-0005fs-MR; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMZt-0005ba-Ar for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:15:26 -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 NAA18219 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMZr-000092-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:15:19 -0400 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMZq-00008r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:15:18 -0400 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ACMZG-0000NN-00; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:14:42 +0100 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: pete@virusbtn.com, pete@clueball.com Message-ID: <20031022171442.GA32683@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i 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 . Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Draft list summary for October Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 18:14:42 +0100 Hello, This month, Virus Bulletin (www.virusbtn.com) will be publishing an anti-spam section. One of the features we'll be including (but also making available freely on the website) is a monthly summary of this list, normally up to the 22nd of each month. Observant readers will have noticed that today (where I am) is the 22nd. I present a draft of roughly what we intend to publish. Neither I nor my concentration is perfect - no doubt there will be people here who feel misrepresented by what I've said, or who are able to point out things I've said that are plain wrong. Please do so! So without further ado, our first draft summary, and a plea for corrections: (please note, spelling mistakes and the like will be (hopefully!) caught slightly later on in the editorial process)... BEGIN David Nicol kicked off the month by posting a link to an article in eWeek about 'Sender Pays', and asked for comments on it. The main points of the article, as summarized by Yakov Shafranovic (and now resummarized by me) were that 'Sender Pays' would not work because: * Because the Internet is global, 'Sender Pays' would require international cooperation at a government level to coordinate * "Micro-payments remain a problem" * This could cause a problem for people who offer free email services * Hijack machines could cause problems Several people politely disagreed with all the above points - the existence of international money transfer organizations, the existence of some micropayment solutions, and so on were mentioned in the various rebuttals. Yakov's plea for a summary sadly went unanswered. Brett Watson defended the use of "Pull" techniques, where "the sender's ISP, rather than the receiver's ISP, is the always-online post office from which the receiver picks up the message", in the words of Dan Bernstein (DJB). Brad Knowles was unconvinced, and a series of exchanges between the two followed. Yakov thanked the participants for not descending into a flame war, citing this as "a mark of improvement for the entire group." Those interested in the rest of DJB's succinct writings on the subject could point their browsers to . Peter Kay commented on Yakov's Challenge / Response Interworking (CRI) proposal draft, and was unhappy about the recommendation that challenge-response systems should send challenges from a user other than the intended recipient, saying many challenge-response systems will white-list recipients of outgoing mail, thus avoiding the need for CRI overhead in those cases. A long discussion followed, including a tale of woe concerning Challenge/Response Hell caused by bug ticketing systems. Yakov announced the creation of a mailing list for dialogue between the authors of SPF, RMX, DMP, and other designated sender schemes, with Alan DeKok coordinating. The SPF website claimed a draft specification was almost ready, and showed how SPF would look using it, but warned that implementers should wait for version two of the draft. Yakov published a link to Curtis M. Kularski's draft on "Creative Addressing" - the general response seemed to be that people felt there were a good number of questions unanswered or that the draft added very little new content. Curtis responded by posting links to earlier versions of his draft that didn't 'lack beef', saying he'd had to change the draft significantly to try and get it accepted by the RFC Editor. Slightly off-topic, Yahoo recently announced (22-Oct) that they were implementing something similar for paying users of their webmail service. Markus Stumpf came up with an interesting idea about spam taxonomy, allowing people to very quickly refer to different sorts of email they term spam, to facilitate communication, which sadly got less of a response than it seemed to merit. His main headings under which a spam could fall were 'Private mail', 'Targeted non-bulk mail' such as contact with existing customers, 'Bulk email', to include discussions lists and so on, and 'Automated messages' such as bounce messages. Andrew Akehurst posted a similar idea a couple of days later, which met with a favorable response, and followed up a little while later with a first draft of his email use-cases. He summed up the major differences between his and Markus's ideas with: 'my main criterion for the classification was to classify things into different categories only if a machine could reasonably recognize the difference between them', and said he was skeptical about the chances of a machine making the distinctions between some of Markus's classifications. Terry Sullivan talked about collecting collections of spam for analysis, and the problems faced by those using spam-trap addresses - otherwise identical spam-trap addresses get vastly different amounts of spam for no discernable reason. He suggested that a concerted effort, either involving asking large organizations/ISPs for access to their spam-traps, or for ASRG to set up its own spam-trap effort. He sums up by saying that unless a concerted effort is made towards trap address maintenance, then the only data we'll have available for research will be (presumably out-of-date) archived data. Kee Hinckly offers an explanation for the variance of spam volume between different addresses, saying it's all too easy to forget that almost all spam is sent by about 200 major spammers, using a smaller number of varieties of mailing software, to an even smaller number of sources of addresses. He goes on to say "What we are sampling is not spam, but spammer targets/techniques" and agrees that "accurately measuring such a small population may require a much greater distribution of spamtraps." Yakov asked Terry to clarify what exactly he wanted, pointing out that there are several sources for archived spam. Terry replied by saying he was mainly soliciting feedback, and Kurt Magnusson spelled out why he thought access to a near real-time source of spam was more useful than dated archives. Andreas Saurwein felt that in his opinion, 15% or so of the pieces of spam on spamarchive.org were not really spam, and that that was a hindrance to running analysis tools against the corpus. Paul Judge made the point that different people have different ideas of what spam is, and suggested a couple of ideas that had been bandied around for refining and filtering the corpus, including using anti-spam products and a sort of 'Am I Spam Or Not' voting system. Some readers may find Vesselin Bontchev's paper on maintaining a virus library provides an interesting parallel: http://www.virusbtn.com/old/OtherPapers/VirLib/ Kurt Magnusson was mildly surprised to find that he had stopped receiving spam from Korea and asked if anyone else had noticed anything similar. No-one apparently had. Yakov pointed out the existence of the Best Current Practices list, and that Brad Knowles is the coordinator. Brad posted some information about the list to the list. "Our unique multifaceted approach to solving Spam, which has been in production since early 2002, is based on a patent pending DNA-like sequencing technology which is languages independent, highly reliable, accurate, and extremely secure" gets the award for saying an awful lot without actually saying a great deal. END Thanks! +Pete _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 13:43:36 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 NAA19320 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACN0t-0000za-FY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MHhFls003808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACN0t-0000zL-Ab for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:15 -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 NAA19308 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACN0r-0000Pq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACN0q-0000Pn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACN0f-0000uv-Tb; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACN07-0000rM-ND for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:42:27 -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 NAA19271 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACN05-0000P3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:42:25 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACN04-0000Oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:42:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 12870 invoked by uid 1013); 22 Oct 2003 17:42:22 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Richard Rognlie Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022174222.GC8716@Space.Net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 22 Oct 2003 19:42:22 +0200 On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:09:43AM -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > So, we don't break forwarding at all. And I've been having quite > good luck with blocking all kinds of mail directed at my domain > claiming a HELO line of my domain (when the IPs in question have > absolutely nothing to do with me). I am sorry and I'd like to apologize. I was too general. I had a quick glance over the abstracts to refresh memory and you don't mention HELO in the abstract ;-) Sorry, \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 Oct 22 14:12:34 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 OAA20552 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACNSv-00066K-Tx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MICDGF023446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACNSv-00065k-PM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20546 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACNSt-0000oF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACNSs-0000oC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACNSi-0005zt-VB; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACNSY-0005xm-CJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20539 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACNSV-0000o3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:47 -0400 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACNSV-0000o0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:47 -0400 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ACNST-0000da-00; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:11:45 +0100 From: Peter Sergeant To: Justin Mason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Draft list summary for October Message-ID: <20031022181145.GA2331@linuxufo.com> References: <20031022171442.GA32683@linuxufo.com> <20031022175136.302D816FC7@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031022175136.302D816FC7@jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i 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 . Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 19:11:45 +0100 > Is this likely to be kept in a subscribers-only section on the > website? IMO, it'd make a great summary page of its own, esp. if it's > bookmarkable and point-at-able. No, this will be freely available for all - we make a certain amount of the publication available online each month - we felt that since we were: a) Simply quoting what others had said b) Going to ask people to correct us c) Hoping to convince people in anti-spam to subscribe and read our other great content and come to our conference ;-) That we'd put this online as our token sample of free content from our anti-spam section. We make all our content freely available three months after publication, so you'll be able to read our other anti-spam articles there (in three month's time). Hope this helps +Pete -- Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out. -- Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 15:04:22 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 PAA22091 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOH3-0001YT-Rr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJ41pl005964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACOH3-0001Y3-Ki for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:01 -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 PAA22048 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOH0-0001Ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOGz-0001GX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOG5-0001Ab-Nq; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOFJ-0000we-MX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:13 -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 PAA21976 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFG-0001FE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:10 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFF-0001F9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:10 -0400 Received: from [203.121.161.48] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9MJ1LCF005258; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001c39800$a4417100$19602241@viper1> References: <000001c39800$a4417100$19602241@viper1> To: From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: "Asrg" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:39:42 +0700 At 2:25 PM -0400 2003/10/21, Denny Figuerres wrote: > Anonimity: as far as I am concerned if someone wants me to recive a > message they should be willing to identify them selves. > This does not mean you can not recive an email from an "unknown" party, > but it does mean that I should be able to read a valid > Email header that is not lying to me. There are human rights workers around the world that have their lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. You will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this issue. Regardless of whatever else we may do, we must find a way to preserve the ability to send e-mail anonymously for the people who need this feature. Otherwise, we may never find out about SARS II, or the next Tutsi-Hutu massacre until it is too late. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 15:04:23 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 PAA22108 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOH3-0001YU-S6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJ41AX005965 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACOH3-0001Y1-Dx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:01 -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 PAA22047 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOH0-0001Gb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOGz-0001GW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOG6-0001Aj-5Z; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOFb-00010F-8Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:31 -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 PAA21994 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFY-0001FT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:28 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFX-0001FQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:27 -0400 Received: from [203.121.161.48] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9MJ1LCJ005258; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> To: Kee Hinckley From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Markus Stumpf , Denny Figuerres , 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, 23 Oct 2003 01:49:45 +0700 At 1:11 AM -0400 2003/10/22, Kee Hinckley wrote: > When faced with the > fact that some servers return 5xx errors on account full, he decided > to ignore all 5xx errors. That's right. He just completely ignores > them. But the real killer is that if you give him a 5xx at connect > time and then close the connection, his software thinks it got a > network error and immediately retries the connection... a lot... > frequently. I was getting slammed with half a million connection > attempts in the period of a few hours. Repeated every 12 to 24 > hours. Despite the fact that we'd immediately close them, it was > saturating a 768kbs DSL line. Simple to solve. Tar-pit him. Make sure that you always take the full five minutes to respond to each command, and slow him down to the full limits of the protocol. Also make sure that you don't give him a 5xx response on connect, wait for the "RCPT TO" before you do that, to help slow him down even more. If he tries to connect to you multiple times in parallel, tar-pit all connections from him. No matter what he does, he'll only be able to talk to you very slowly, and he'll probably remove you from his lists because he doesn't like having his server tied up. Postfix does this easily. > 61,000 machines engaged in a coordinated spam attack on a single machine. That's a much tougher problem to solve. Greylisting plus tar-pitting (by sender domain) would be a start, but you'd still have very large numbers of simultaneous connection attempts to deal with. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 15:04:24 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 PAA22120 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOH4-0001Yj-0d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJ41YE005987 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACOH3-0001YG-Qg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:04:01 -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 PAA22052 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOH0-0001Gh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOGz-0001GY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOG6-0001B7-Lf; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOFh-00011L-W5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:38 -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 PAA22004 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFe-0001Fh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:34 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOFe-0001Fe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:34 -0400 Received: from [203.121.161.48] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9MJ1LCH005258; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> To: Richard Rognlie From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:44:25 +0700 At 12:09 AM -0400 2003/10/22, Richard Rognlie wrote: > And remember, I'm not specifying that mail from rrognlie@gamerz.net > has to come from "the" gamerz.net RMX... just taht the HELO line > claiming to be play.gamerz.net (my MTA) must be the specified > IP (or one of the specified IPs). Trivially easy to by-pass. Just claim to be 127.0.0.1, or 10.0.0.1, or some other IP address. Or maybe your "real" external IP address (assuming you have some reliable way of determining that, even though you might be behind a NAT or whatever). There's a reason why the RFC says that you don't validate the hostname claimed in HELO/EHLO. It takes too much time, and is too easy to by-pass. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 15:23:22 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 PAA23965 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOZR-0006sX-Qv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:23:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJN1x8026440 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACOZR-0006sN-Lj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:23:01 -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 PAA23960 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOZQ-0001TQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:23:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOZQ-0001TN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:23:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOYU-0006fe-NC; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:22:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOXj-0006UG-CV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:21:15 -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 PAA23869 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOXi-0001SY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:21:14 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOXh-0001SI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:21:13 -0400 Message-Id: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "denny " Reply-To: X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General X-Mailer: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 15:22:01 -0400 ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Brad Knowles Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:39:42 +0700 >At 2:25 PM -0400 2003/10/21, Denny Figuerres wrote: > >> Anonimity: as far as I am concerned if someone wants me to recive a >> message they should be willing to identify them selves. >> This does not mean you can not recive an email from an "unknown" party, >> but it does mean that I should be able to read a valid >> Email header that is not lying to me. > > There are human rights workers around the world that have their >lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. >You will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, >thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this >issue. > > Regardless of whatever else we may do, we must find a way to >preserve the ability to send e-mail anonymously for the people who >need this feature. Otherwise, we may never find out about SARS II, >or the next Tutsi-Hutu massacre until it is too late. > >-- >Brad Knowles, Well in part I will say that I have never sent an "Anon" email and I would like to know just how "Anon" it is *unless* you have some kind of "Man-in-the-middle" who changes the email headers to hide the sender. and in my view that can still be done and keep enough of a trail for spam handling / traffic accounting. UA.o --> [ANON_SMTP_MANGLER] ---> DEST.MTA where [ANON_SMTP_MANGLER] is a "Black box" to the reciver end but has an address and can be found, may be more than one server, may use more than one IP / server to do it's work. also while we are talking about this: spam filters read and clasify email, they track senders and log stuff.... IMHO thats a *LOT* of data and code that could be used by the wrong folks to trap the very email we want to get thru. so don't the senders of this email need to masq the content with say PGP at the start?? -- ============================================= Denny Figuerres Denny@Figuerres.com --------------------------------------------- Twenty billion junk e-mail messages sent per day may potentially take 20 billion seconds to delete. A human life is a mere two billion seconds long. In effect, spammers kill ten people each day. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 15:28:09 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 PAA24217 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOe0-0008Nm-RJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJRifY032221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOe0-0008Nb-JW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:44 -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 PAA24185 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOdz-0001YT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOdy-0001YQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOdK-00082M-Ag; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:27:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOcv-0007qX-7o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:26:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24126 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOct-0001Wj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:26:35 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOct-0001We-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:26:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 21158 invoked by uid 1013); 22 Oct 2003 19:26:34 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022192634.GA18651@Space.Net> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 22 Oct 2003 21:26:34 +0200 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:49:45AM +0700, Brad Knowles wrote: > Simple to solve. Tar-pit him. Make sure that you always take > the full five minutes to respond to each command, and slow him down > to the full limits of the protocol. Also make sure that you don't > give him a 5xx response on connect, wait for the "RCPT TO" before you > do that, to help slow him down even more. If he tries to connect to > you multiple times in parallel, tar-pit all connections from him. We have some busy mailservers running a connenction limit of 250 parallel connections at all. While I have noticed I have no problems with 50 connections in tarpit from different hosts (some from the same) you can easily run in a homegrown DoS if the number of concurrent tarpitted connections becomes too high. I have written a wrapper (which is far from being in a state for a release) that connects to a (central) server and sends "CONNECT ". The server has rules like - connections per timeframe (both freely configurable) - max concurrent connections it checks the IP against the ruleset for that IP and either sends "OK" or "REJECT ". The wrapper forks()s the smtpd in case of an "OK" and waits for termination to send a "DISCONNECT " to the server. In case of a "REJECT" it sends a "4xy reason" and drops the connection. The client/server architecture makes it possible to group mailservers to a cluster and enforce the policies for the cluster. For a quick and dirty solution to overzealous senders I find it useful to (in Unix environments) add a route like route add 127.0.0.1 One doesn't have a firewall kernel on each machine and that way one doesn't have to mess with the firewall config at all. \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 Oct 22 15:48:20 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 PAA24889 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOxc-0005ZI-1a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:48:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJm019021398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACOxb-0005Z3-Sb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:47:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24843 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOxV-0001nI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:47:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOxV-0001nF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:47:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOwe-0005EW-8m; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACOvq-0004xp-S7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:46:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24730 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOvp-0001ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:46:09 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACOvo-0001lk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:46:08 -0400 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9MJkqp12953; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:46:52 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5F58616FC7; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A69F756; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:46:03 -0700 (PDT) To: Brad Knowles Cc: denny@figuerres.com, "Asrg" Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General In-Reply-To: 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: <20031022194603.5F58616FC7@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, 22 Oct 2003 12:45:58 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brad Knowles writes: >At 2:25 PM -0400 2003/10/21, Denny Figuerres wrote: > >> Anonimity: as far as I am concerned if someone wants me to recive a >> message they should be willing to identify them selves. >> This does not mean you can not recive an email from an "unknown" party, >> but it does mean that I should be able to read a valid >> Email header that is not lying to me. > > There are human rights workers around the world that have their >lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. >You will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, >thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this >issue. This is important, I agree. But IMO, something like the PGP remailers and/or hushmail are the key systems to support this form of free speech -- it should *not* be part of the core SMTP protocol. Here's why: As it stands, SMTP is *not* anonymous for such people. It takes a lot of technical know-how to send an anonymous email that cannot be tracked to your ISP, who then have your phone number in their call records. For example, I know right away that your mail was sent by 216.194.225.101 at Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:10 -0400. No matter what header data you insert or remove, you can't hide that tracking data. To avoid this, you may use open proxies. But for a whistleblower, this still would not be safe, if there was enough law enforcement interest; an authoritarian state would just have to sniff the unencrypted traffic going *from* the source *to* the proxy to catch "troublemakers". More likely, a sensible whistleblower would be using systems like hushmail, Peekabooty, Freedom Network, and (if they're techie) the PGP remailers network. (Most nowadays seem to use hushmail.) These can be volume-throttled, do not provide spammable bandwidth, or use CAPTCHAs, so they become useless for bulk mail spamming -- but remain *very* useful for free speech, since they *are* fully encrypted and *designed* for whistleblowing activity. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQE/lt52QTcbUG5Y7woRAi9eAKCV2IQ687iSXnQxqJcmWhR863tNBwCeOT2z 0L2+xlsRMXqy9Fz+YS8qS9k= =dPOm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 16:00:12 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 QAA25208 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACP95-0008HF-IW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MJxp48031811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACP95-0008H0-Ci for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25187 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACP93-0001ug-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACP93-0001ud-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:59:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACP8H-00080V-L6; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACP7w-0007v5-Ss for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25157 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACP7v-0001tl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:39 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACP7t-0001th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:37 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 251A61F001; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Justin Mason Cc: Brad Knowles , denny@figuerres.com, Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022200147.GD16254@mail> References: <20031022194603.5F58616FC7@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031022194603.5F58616FC7@jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:01:48 -0400 On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:45:58PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote: > > Brad Knowles writes: > > There are human rights workers around the world that have their > >lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. > >You will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, > >thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this > >issue. > > This is important, I agree. > > But IMO, something like the PGP remailers and/or hushmail are the key > systems to support this form of free speech -- it should *not* be part of > the core SMTP protocol. Here's why: I think there's an important distinction to make between 'Internet email' and 'messages'. If the choice is between 'all mail servers are open, and all users must accept spam' and 'mail servers authenticate connections in some way, and activists need to create their own infrastructure to get messages out' - I'll pick the second. To _whom_ are the activists sending their messages? Are they spamming them to random recipients, or to known contacts? If to known contacts, why can't they use encryption to hide the content. If they're spamming to unconsenting recipients, how is that any different (technically) from commercial spam? -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 16:06:24 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 QAA25510 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPF5-0001gb-UW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MK63KY006475 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPF5-0001gM-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25495 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPF4-000208-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPF3-000205-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPE6-0001LB-29; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:05:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPDL-00014e-54 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:04:15 -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 QAA25346 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPDJ-0001xU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:04:13 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPDH-0001xP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:04:12 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 655691F07E; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Richard Rognlie , Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031022200726.GE16254@mail> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:26 -0400 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:44:25AM +0700, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:09 AM -0400 2003/10/22, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > > And remember, I'm not specifying that mail from rrognlie@gamerz.net > > has to come from "the" gamerz.net RMX... just taht the HELO line > > claiming to be play.gamerz.net (my MTA) must be the specified > > IP (or one of the specified IPs). > > Trivially easy to by-pass. Just claim to be 127.0.0.1, or > 10.0.0.1, or some other IP address. Or maybe your "real" external IP > address (assuming you have some reliable way of determining that, > even though you might be behind a NAT or whatever). So, connections from nameless IPs probably deserve to be weighted as 'spam-likely' in your consent decision. Perhaps even 'spam, guaranteed'. > There's a reason why the RFC says that you don't validate the > hostname claimed in HELO/EHLO. It takes too much time, and is too > easy to by-pass. That design decision was made before the current situation came into being. Now, my spamassassin installation spends far more time doing content inspection on spam messages than the 'too much time' it would take to validate the provided hostname. The network environment has changed, the assumptions about overhead need to be re-evaluated. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 16:08:07 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 QAA25586 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPGi-0002Rp-CC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MK7itK009395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPGh-0002RK-IL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:43 -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 QAA25559 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPGf-00021i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPGf-00021f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPG1-00022M-Jz; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPFV-0001r5-Si for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:29 -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 QAA25504 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPFU-00020b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPFT-0001zy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:06:27 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (dhcp64-134-214-209.sptc.dca.wayport.net [64.134.214.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HN600IGJD5TU6@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:05:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - AT&T Whitelists In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F96E31F.8040704@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 16:05:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Kee Hinckley wrote: > I assume some people on this list have seen this. > Corporate AT&T is attempting to switch to IP whitelisting. Not on the > whitelist, you can't send them email. > > http://www.sosdg.org/attmail.html Please read the following statement from NANOG list (http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15964.html): > From: Steve Bellovin > Date: Wed Oct 22 14:46:35 2003 > > AT&T STATEMENT - CURRENT SPAM ATTACK - 10/22/03 > > AT&T and a number of other large companies have seen a marked > increase in the amount of incoming SPAM in recent days. A team of > experts that includes members from AT&T Labs, Network Services, > and Corporate Security has implemented a number of procedures to > remediate this situation and minimize its impact on those trying > to send e-mail to "att.com" addresses. > > As of this morning - Wednesday, October 22nd - the level of incoming > e-mail messages is returning to normal and the situation appears > to be well in hand. Although all AT&T e-mail servers are fully > operational at this time, some incoming messages are experiencing > intermittent delays as SPAM filtering continues at all network > gateways. > > Customers who received e-mail bulletins from AT&T Monday and Tuesday > requesting specific information are advised to disregard those > messages. They were inadvertently sent out in error and we apologize > for any confusion or inconvenience they may have caused. > > Network reliability is one of our top priorities at AT&T, so for > obvious reasons we will not be providing more detailed information > regarding the specific security procedures implemented to curb this > SPAM attack. We have no intention of helping those who generate > this type of computer and Internet mischief. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 16:18:10 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 QAA26077 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPQU-0005T6-PC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MKHov0021014 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPQU-0005Sr-Ki for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:50 -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 QAA26025 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPQS-0002AR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPQS-0002AO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPPg-0005E3-Un; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACPPd-0005Cj-0i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:16:57 -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 QAA25967 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPPb-000297-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:16:55 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACPPa-000294-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:16:54 -0400 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9MKHOp14065; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:17:31 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 12C0816FC7; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06962F756; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT) To: David Maxwell Cc: Justin Mason , Brad Knowles , denny@figuerres.com, Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General In-Reply-To: <20031022200147.GD16254@mail> 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: <20031022201628.12C0816FC7@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, 22 Oct 2003 13:16:22 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Maxwell writes: >On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:45:58PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> Brad Knowles writes: >> > There are human rights workers around the world that have their >> >lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. >> >You will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, >> >thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this >> >issue. >> >> This is important, I agree. >> >> But IMO, something like the PGP remailers and/or hushmail are the key >> systems to support this form of free speech -- it should *not* be part of >> the core SMTP protocol. Here's why: > >I think there's an important distinction to make between 'Internet >email' and 'messages'. > >If the choice is between 'all mail servers are open, and all users must >accept spam' and 'mail servers authenticate connections in some way, and >activists need to create their own infrastructure to get messages out' - >I'll pick the second. > >To _whom_ are the activists sending their messages? Are they spamming >them to random recipients, or to known contacts? If to known contacts, >why can't they use encryption to hide the content. If they're spamming >to unconsenting recipients, how is that any different (technically) from >commercial spam? Exactly -- from what I've seen of it, it's generally to known contacts (e.g. cryptome, journalists, Amnesty etc.) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQE/luWWQTcbUG5Y7woRAouTAJ0bOxs+KYUFK8pq7yuSoW454I69AACg54VM rOMx5PjWZ0OHeDYjj3JjjN4= =bl1s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 17:19:20 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 RAA28519 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQNh-00031R-NR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:19:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MLJ1Ob011611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQNh-00031C-Hy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:19:01 -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 RAA28490 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQNf-0002ra-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:18:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQNe-0002rX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:18:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQMj-0002fH-4F; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACQLz-0002VP-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:17:15 -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 RAA28370 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQLx-0002oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:17:13 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQLw-0002oW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:17:12 -0400 Message-Id: <200310221718.AA8781948@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "denny " Reply-To: X-Sender: To: X-Mailer: Subject: [Asrg] postings double?? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 17:18:00 -0400 Ok folks is it just me or..... looks like folks are CC'ing each other and posting to the list and the result Is with some posts I'm seeing 2 & 3 of the same message sent to me via different paths. :-$ ?? -- ============================================= Denny Figuerres Denny@Figuerres.com --------------------------------------------- Twenty billion junk e-mail messages sent per day may potentially take 20 billion seconds to delete. A human life is a mere two billion seconds long. In effect, spammers kill ten people each day. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 22 17:56:24 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 RAA29623 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQxV-0001fP-Mc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:56:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MLu1hA006401 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQxV-0001fA-Fh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:56:01 -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 RAA29596 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQxS-0003Al-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:55:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQxS-0003Af-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:55:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQwY-0001Nj-W3; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACQwF-0001Iu-Ss for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:54:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29572 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQwD-00039u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:54:41 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACQwC-00039r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:54:40 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3002900; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:54:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> To: Brad Knowles From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Markus Stumpf , Denny Figuerres , 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: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:32:22 -0400 At 1:49 AM +0700 10/23/03, Brad Knowles wrote: > Simple to solve. Tar-pit him. Make sure that you always >take the full five minutes to respond to each command, and slow him >down to the full limits of the protocol. Also make sure that you >don't give him a 5xx response on connect, wait for the "RCPT TO" >before you do that, to help slow him down even more. If he tries to >connect to you multiple times in parallel, tar-pit all connections >from him. Then you enter into an interesting resource battle. Who has more resources that they can afford to keep around doing nothing? That's a dangerous game to play. But in any case, my mail server doesn't support it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 22 18:45:23 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 SAA02906 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACRiy-0003wF-Ik for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9MMj4DA015135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACRiy-0003w2-Dd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:04 -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 SAA02887 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACRiv-0003gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACRiu-0003gp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACRhw-0003gK-UD; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACRhC-0003Zw-IB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02770 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACRh9-0003f4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:43:11 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACRh8-0003f1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:43:10 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3003048; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:43:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200310221718.AA8781948@mail.figuerres.com> References: <200310221718.AA8781948@mail.figuerres.com> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] postings double?? 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: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:29:11 -0400 At 5:18 PM -0400 10/22/03, denny wrote: >Ok folks is it just me or..... > >looks like folks are CC'ing each other and posting to the list and >the result Is with some posts I'm seeing 2 & 3 of the same message >sent to me via different paths. That's correct (although how you get 3 I haven't a clue). This must come up about once a month. Some people prefer to receive a "courtesy copy", some people hate it. Absent a protocol for your email program to tell my email program which category you are in, it's not likely to change. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 22 22:53:09 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 WAA15399 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACVak-0002bf-Ts for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9N2qonf010013 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACVak-0002bQ-Mq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:50 -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 WAA15380 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACVah-0007YV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACVag-0007YS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACVZx-0002Hl-KG; Wed, 22 Oct 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 1ACVZv-0002HW-RU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:59 -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 WAA15365 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACVZs-0007Y9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:56 -0400 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACVZr-0007Xz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:55 -0400 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.223] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A23F1E9007C; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:43 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "Asrg" Subject: RE: [Asrg] postings double?? Message-ID: <000001c39910$7167a450$df602241@viper1> 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-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (32047228) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (32047228) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Oct 2003 22:50:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Kee Hinckley > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:29 PM > To: denny@figuerres.com > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] postings double?? > > > At 5:18 PM -0400 10/22/03, denny wrote: > >Ok folks is it just me or..... > > > >looks like folks are CC'ing each other and posting to the list and > >the result Is with some posts I'm seeing 2 & 3 of the same message > >sent to me via different paths. > > That's correct (although how you get 3 I haven't a clue). This must > come up about once a month. Some people prefer to receive a > "courtesy copy", some people hate it. Absent a protocol for your > email program to tell my email program which category you are in, > it's not likely to change. What?? Ok perhaps I am dense but let try this: The mailing list is a common place for us to exchange our comments right? Then reply to the list unless you want to start a "private" talk. Looking at the header above you email'ed me directly and CC'ed the list. If you just send it to the list I'll get a copy from the list right?? So why email me directly?? By the way IMHO the list is not sending the messages with the right default: The "Reply To" should be to "the List" then you read, hit reply enter comments and send. Bingo everyone gets a copy and it's on the list. IMHO the only time to directly email is to take the message out of the list. At least that's how I have seen serveral other lists work in the past... And it was *MUCH* simpler. But hey I could be wrong about this? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 00:03:44 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 AAA17738 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACWh3-0008Fx-8T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9N43PLb031731 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACWh3-0008Fi-2a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17718 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACWh0-0000Ym-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACWh0-0000Yj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:03:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACWgf-0008AZ-Hm; Thu, 23 Oct 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 1ACWgP-00089C-Ee for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:02:45 -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 AAA17701 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACWgN-0000YL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:02:43 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACWgM-0000YI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:02:42 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3003931 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:02:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001c39910$7167a450$df602241@viper1> References: <000001c39910$7167a450$df602241@viper1> To: "Asrg" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] postings double?? 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, 22 Oct 2003 23:52:50 -0400 At 10:50 PM -0400 10/22/03, Denny Figuerres wrote: >If you just send it to the list I'll get a copy from the list right?? >So why email me directly?? Because mail that comes through the list goes into my folder for the list, where I may read it now, or a week from now. Mail sent to me goes to my direct inbox where I deal with it at a much higher priority. Yes, I could set up rules to deal with this better (and in fact I do--mail cc'd to me is colored differently in the list), but that won't catch all the possible cases in which I might receive a private copy. So if you respond to one of my postings without cc'ing me, I may not reply anytime soon. In fact, since I occasionally just wipe an entire thread without reading, I may not reply at all. >The "Reply To" should be to "the List" then you read, hit reply enter >comments and send. Lots of debate on that one too of course, although I happen to agree. >At least that's how I have seen serveral other lists work in the past... >And it was *MUCH* simpler. I've seen this argued back and forth on virtually every list I've been on in the past twenty years. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 23 11:13:34 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 LAA28239 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACh9F-0003gL-Ci for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NFDDHx014154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACh9E-0003gD-Rk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:12 -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 LAA28221 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACh9E-00023K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACh9D-00023G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACh92-0003bU-3i; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACh8m-0003YX-4Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:44 -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 LAA28212 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACh8l-00022y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:43 -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 1ACh8k-00022u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:42 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:19:51 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Asrg" Subject: RE: [Asrg] postings double?? (off ASRG topic) 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2003 15:19:51.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A81E9C0:01C39979] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:12:40 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Knowles wrote: > The "Reply To" should be to "the List" then you read, hit reply enter > comments and send. > Bingo everyone gets a copy and it's on the list. Wrong. See . I think Chip's diatribe is at least as wrong (probably wronger, in fact) as the sentiment you are quoting against. The diatribe seems to me to suffer from the sort of "techie arrogance" that is all too common amongst net "experts". It refers to RFC822, an (out of date, long-superceded - try RFC2822 now) transmission data format standard as support for claims about desirable behaviour of the UI component of an MUA - a subject on which the RFC makes no observations whatever. It quotes RFC 1153 as an authority on what should be done in list servers to Reply-To headers, but these are in fact not mentioned even once in that RFC. Generally it appears to attempt to generate an aura of arcane knowledge and experience which will preclude a mere layman from challenging its conclusions, while scrupulously avoiding the provision of a single technical reference or well-founded argument to asupport those conclusions. The design of MUAs and list servers can be approached from the point of view of practical ergonomics and fitness for purpose. The list server design has to be subservient to the MUA design: there's a lot of MUAs out there and a lot of user inertia to overcome, compared to the number of list servers and amount of list administrator inertia. Some lists are designed to anonymise the originator of the message; the design of such a list will be broken instantly by a decision not to munge the Reply-To header. For many lists, the most commonly intended reply action is to send the reply to the list without a second copy to the originator: as the most common action, it should be achievable with a single mouse-click or key-stroke - and almost all the MUAs out there will not allow you to do that if the list software doesn't munge the Reply-To header. For other lists the most commonly required reply action is a reply to the list moderator - again, Reply-To header munging is required to make this the default action of most MUAs. There are lists where it is intened that the most common reply action is reply to message originator: it would be utterly stupid for the Reply-To header to be munged for these lists. For some lists the originator may not receive messages addressed to the list (either because posts from non-members are allowed - pretty rare now that spam has become sucgh a scourge - or because the list allows members to go into send only mode from time to time), so what the post that started this thread saw as "postings double" is essential if the reply is to go both to the list and to the originator. Each list has its own requirements, the standardised message of RFC2822 is not adequate to cover all these requirements without header munging. What I want out of an MUA is to be able to chose between reply to originator, reply to list, reply to list with copy to originator, reply to list with copy to cc reipients of the original message, .... quite a few options. The headers provided by RFC2822 are not adequate to permit an MUA to offer all these options in a simple and straightforward usable manner. For a list like asrg, I suspect the most common reply requirement is reply to the list without sending an extra copy to the originator. Most MUAs make it hard (more than a single mouse-click or key-stroke) to do that because asrg does not munge the Reply-To header (maybe Elm makes it possible with it's "g" command, I don't know) - I've used dozens of MUAs on several varieties of Unix, various varieties of Windows, and a few odd-ball systems and none of them has provided that capability as a single key-strokewith unmunged Reply-To header. So I think this list would probably be improved by adding the munging - biut I don't think it's worth arguing about; what I do think is worth arguing about is someone claiming that as a general principal such munging should not be done: the RFCs make no attenmpt to dictate to me (or anyone else) what features I should put into applications I supply to my users, and I don't like to see Chip claiming they do and neither do I like to see Brad quoting him as if he were holy writ. Tom _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 12:07:11 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 MAA02880 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AChz4-0006GV-GH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NG6kbS024077 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AChz4-0006GF-B1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:46 -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 MAA02853 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AChz1-0003Wo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AChz1-0003Wl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AChyL-000641-8n; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AChyH-00063J-MG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:05:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02819 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AChyG-0003W4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:05:56 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AChyE-0003VO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:05:55 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id BA0251F001; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:08:43 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:08:43 -0400 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:22:26PM +0700, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 3:22 PM -0400 2003/10/22, denny wrote: > > > Well in part I will say that I have never sent an "Anon" email and > > I would like to know just how "Anon" it is *unless* you have some kind > > of "Man-in-the-middle" who changes the email headers to hide the sender. > > Okay, so for all the pieces of spam you have ever received, tell > me precisely who sent each and every one of them. Hell, just tell me > who sent a random 1% sampling. The headers certainly contain the IP of the first host that made an SMTP connection to send the mail. On the one hand, you're arguing that mapping that IP back to a user is hard to do - and for me to coerce an ISP to give up that userid, is difficult. On the other hand, you're arguing that governments who are persecuting people won't be able to apprehend them, because of the difficultly in this mapping. I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP than I do as an individual. It seems to me that this means spammers can use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't use it to hide from governments. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Any sufficiently advanced Common Sense will seem like magic... - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 12:13:44 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 MAA03578 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACi5U-0007RD-Bf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NGDOMa028585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACi5U-0007Qy-7O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:24 -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 MAA03533 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACi5S-0003lZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACi5S-0003lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACi56-0007L4-TF; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACi4m-0007Hp-F7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:12:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03432 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACi4l-0003jN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:12:39 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACi4k-0003jJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:12:38 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8ACF91F001; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:15:56 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031023161556.GJ16254@mail> References: <20031022194603.5F58616FC7@jmason.org> <20031022200147.GD16254@mail> 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, 23 Oct 2003 12:15:56 -0400 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:23:08PM +0700, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 4:01 PM -0400 2003/10/22, David Maxwell wrote: > > > If the choice is between 'all mail servers are open, and all users must > > accept spam' and 'mail servers authenticate connections in some way, and > > activists need to create their own infrastructure to get messages out' - > > I'll pick the second. > > Would you be willing to bet your life on that? The life of your > family and friends? Would you be willing to have them tortured to > death while you watch, because you made this bet? I can separate the emotional issues in that situation from the technical problems caused by spam which are affecting all users of email. Can you? Instead of using your energy to try to prevent progress in solving the spam problem, why don't you use it to develop a system that supports a solution to this problem you feel strongly about. > > To _whom_ are the activists sending their messages? Are they spamming > > them to random recipients, or to known contacts? If to known contacts, > > why can't they use encryption to hide the content. If they're spamming > > to unconsenting recipients, how is that any different (technically) from > > commercial spam? > > Encryption is usually highly illegal (as in, a capital offense) > in those places where the human rights workers are most likely to be > needed. Yes, they can use steganography techniques to try to hide > the crypto, but they're still taking a serious risk. > > You get caught with this sort of stuff, and you get declared an > enemy of the state, guilt of spying and high treason. And then you > get executed. > > That's after they torture you and make you watch while they > torture your family and friends to death. You did not answer my question. You then followed with a statemen that these activists who are already at risk due to the content they are communicating would be at risk for using encryption... that seems to not contribute to the discussion. Then you got emotional again. If someone _consents_ to receiving mail from these activists, they can configure an SMTP (or other protocol which might be less likely to be sniffed!) server to accept connections from anyone, anonymously. That in no way implies that everyone on the planet should be FORCED to 'consent' to accepting mail from anyone, anonymously. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, unthinking mass. This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your boss about everything you read on BugTraq! - Signal 11 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 13:04:43 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 NAA07168 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACisp-0000kA-H1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NH4N6v002852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACisp-0000jv-Ca for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:23 -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 NAA07158 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACisn-0004qA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACisn-0004q7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACisT-0000fG-32; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACirp-0000Vu-13 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:03:21 -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 NAA07106 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACirn-0004pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:03:19 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACirm-0004pX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:03:18 -0400 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9NH40p16420; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:04:01 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E4AE016FC9; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA8FF756; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:03:12 -0700 (PDT) To: Brad Knowles Cc: "Asrg" Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General In-Reply-To: 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: <20031023170312.E4AE016FC9@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: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:03:07 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brad Knowles writes: >At 12:45 PM -0700 2003/10/22, Justin Mason wrote: > >> But IMO, something like the PGP remailers and/or hushmail are the key >> systems to support this form of free speech -- it should *not* be part of >> the core SMTP protocol. Here's why: > > I disagree. They are an important tool in the toolbox, but alone >they are not sufficient to guarantee the security and privacy of that >connection. Until recently, penet.fi was believed to be a secure >anonymous remailer -- until we found out that they'd been back-doored >by the government. Who knows how many other remailers have already >been back-doored? I don't think that was penet.fi. I can't find the details of it right now though... But suffice to say, it did *not* sound like a secure anon remailer from what I could tell. Instead it sounded like a gimmicky e-commerce site IMO. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQE/mAnLQTcbUG5Y7woRAg80AKC4WXRurdK57F7vVDp6oXc3eFXxGACfcIbt aEYJOhuMtyPsZdeH/wAQyQo= =1KfQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 13:17:10 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 NAA07649 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACj4p-0003d5-G2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NHGlqJ013945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACj4o-0003cn-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:47 -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 NAA07620 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACj4n-00050D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACj4m-00050A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:16:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACj45-0003N7-Lp; Thu, 23 Oct 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 1ACj39-00039O-FI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:15:03 -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 NAA07552 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACj37-0004z9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:15:01 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACj32-0004z5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:15:01 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 227C21F001; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:18:14 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031023171814.GM16254@mail> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> <20031022200726.GE16254@mail> 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, 23 Oct 2003 13:18:14 -0400 > At 4:07 PM -0400 2003/10/22, David Maxwell wrote: > > So, connections from nameless IPs probably deserve to be weighted as > > 'spam-likely' in your consent decision. Perhaps even 'spam, guaranteed'. > > That's fine, but keep in mind that this has collateral damage > consequences. It's my choice to accept those consequences - it's _my_ consent decision. > Use DRIP (or DRIP-like techniques) as a whitelist, and that can > be abused, too -- Plenty of spammers are perfectly happy to > authenticate in whatever way you want, and will make sure that their > reverse DNS fully matches, etc... just to get their mail through. That's not an abuse of DRIP. DRIP provides a layer upon which I can add a white/grey/blacklist by domain. Without DRIP (or RMX, etc), I cannot whitelist by domain, since spammers can forge spam claiming to be from one of the domains I whitelist. > Then there are the virus/spammers who use victim machines distributed > around the world, most of whom probably are properly configured to > use outbound mail relays that are likewise correctly configured. Many of the viruses forge email source. If they didn't, I could easily contact the sender and tell them to cleanup their machine. > > That design decision was made before the current situation came into > > being. Now, my spamassassin installation spends far more time doing > > content inspection on spam messages than the 'too much time' it would > > take to validate the provided hostname. > > Then your spamassassin configuration is not correctly configured. > You shouldn't be using it that way unless you can make sure that you > can conform to the same kinds of situations and response times as > were anticipated when the RFC was written. I'm not rejecting the mails in the SMTP phase - so the RFC specs are not relevant - however, the fact that I cannot implement white/grey/blacklists leaves content inspection as the only method to identify spam. That 'guesswork' takes a lot of CPU time, and gives me a very non-deterministic answer anyway. > > The network environment has changed, the assumptions about overhead need > > to be re-evaluated. > > Re-writing the RFC is a different matter, something which I > believe we are also participating in. However, until the RFC is > re-written and gotten to at least the "Proposed Standard" stage, you > should not be knowingly in violation of it. I'm not violating it - I'm discussing changing it. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 13:37:49 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 NAA08569 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACjOp-0007fa-VQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NHbRBr029426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACjOo-0007eG-OG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:26 -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 NAA08552 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACjOm-0005MC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACjOm-0005M9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:37:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACjOP-0007Uh-2j; Thu, 23 Oct 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 1ACjO0-0007Na-TS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:36:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08505 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACjNy-0005Km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:36:34 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACjNy-0005Ke-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:36:34 -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 1ACjRp-0000MN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:40:33 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:44:25 +0700." 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, 23 Oct 2003 13:40:33 -0400 Brad Knowles wrote: > the HELO line > > claiming to be play.gamerz.net (my MTA) must be the specified > > IP (or one of the specified IPs). > > Trivially easy to by-pass. Just claim to be 127.0.0.1, or > 10.0.0.1, or some other IP address. Or maybe your "real" external IP > address (assuming you have some reliable way of determining that, > even though you might be behind a NAT or whatever). The IP in EHLO not matching the source IP of the SMTP session is a strong indication of spam. The IP in EHLO being the IP of the recipient MTA is an even stronger indication of spam. And the use of an IP in EHLO is correlated with spam, at least in my experience, and for the people I've talked to. > There's a reason why the RFC says that you don't validate the > hostname claimed in HELO/EHLO. It takes too much time, and is too > easy to by-pass. Not quite. RFC 2821, Section 4.l.4, paragraph 6 discusses the correlation of host name in EHLO to IP, and says that a lack of correlation doesn't mean anything. For the purposes of RMX-style solutions, that correlation is never checked, and is therefore never used to make a decision about the SMTP transaction. That section of RFC 2821 is therefore not violated by RMX-style solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 23 14:40:50 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 OAA11640 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkNp-0002y0-R7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NIeTV4011398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkNp-0002xl-LT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:29 -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 OAA11631 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkNn-0006IT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkNm-0006IQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkNP-0002sC-TT; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkNM-0002rH-Q1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:40:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11617 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkNK-0006Hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:39:58 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkNJ-0006Hu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:39:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 44021 invoked by uid 1013); 23 Oct 2003 18:39:55 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: David Maxwell Cc: Brad Knowles , Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:39:55 +0200 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:08:43PM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > The headers certainly contain the IP of the first host that made an SMTP > connection to send the mail. Which is worthless if it was injected via an open relay. It's estiamted that there a more than a half million of them currently. > I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP > than I do as an individual. It seems to me that this means spammers can > use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't > use it to hide from governments. The problem is that there are laws that touch the area of spam. But nobody really cares if the damage is around 1 Cent. \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 Thu Oct 23 14:51:28 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 OAA12351 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkY8-0004o0-Tf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NIp8x1018466 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkY8-0004nl-Oo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12315 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:50:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkY6-0006U9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkY5-0006U6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkY3-0004ko-LM; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACkY0-0004jv-Jw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:51:00 -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 OAA12287 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkXx-0006TH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:50:57 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACkXx-0006TE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:50:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 44696 invoked by uid 1013); 23 Oct 2003 18:50:56 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] postings double?? Message-ID: <20031023185056.GE18651@Space.Net> References: <000001c39910$7167a450$df602241@viper1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001c39910$7167a450$df602241@viper1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:50:56 +0200 On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:50:39PM -0400, Denny Figuerres wrote: > The "Reply To" should be to "the List" then you read, hit reply enter > comments and send. > Bingo everyone gets a copy and it's on the list. There is an (unofficial) Header element called Mail-Followup-To: (http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html) which is supported by a lot of MUAs. Try setting Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org for your posts to this list, this might reduce the amount of Cc'ed messsges you get. \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 Thu Oct 23 15:43:45 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 PAA16302 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AClMe-0005Vw-GO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9NJhKTj021190 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AClMe-0005Vh-BD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:20 -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 PAA16290 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AClMc-0007PJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AClMc-0007PG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:43:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AClML-0005Kc-Pz; Thu, 23 Oct 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 1AClLV-00054g-PQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:42:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16271 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AClLU-0007Oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:42:08 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AClLT-0007Ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:42:07 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 3006457; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> To: Brad Knowles From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General 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, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:43 -0400 At 7:23 PM +0700 10/23/03, Brad Knowles wrote: >> But in any case, my mail server doesn't >> support it. > > I'm sorry to hear that. ;-( "My" is ambiguous there. The one I use for internal use (CommuniGate) doesn't. Messagefire's anti-spam proxy server supports it, but we are still experimenting to find the right balance. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense 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 Oct 24 01:18:46 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 BAA03693 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACuLA-0002RI-Er for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9O5IOPm009372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACuLA-0002R5-9p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:24 -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 BAA03686 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACuL7-0005Xx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACuL6-0005Xu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACuKn-0002Ho-2t; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACuKA-000241-VH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:17:23 -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 BAA03681 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACuK7-0005Xi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:17:19 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACuK7-0005Xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:17:19 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id A8E9C1F001; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:20:33 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Brad Knowles , Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:20:33 -0400 > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:08:43PM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > > The headers certainly contain the IP of the first host that made an SMTP > > connection to send the mail. > > Which is worthless if it was injected via an open relay. It's estiamted > that there a more than a half million of them currently. No, you haven't thought that statement through. Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. If you want to talk about open Proxy servers, or owned machines, that's a different discussion, but in any case, if someone chooses to support DRIP/RMX/whatever for their domain, and they list their open-relay MTA as a server for their domain, then you'll probably want to blacklist them ;-) > > I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP > > than I do as an individual. It seems to me that this means spammers can > > use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't > > use it to hide from governments. > > The problem is that there are laws that touch the area of spam. > But nobody really cares if the damage is around 1 Cent. We weren't discussing that aspect of government, we were talking about governments abusing power to harass (etc) activists. The governments in question, Brad explained, really do care about these activists, so we can certainly expect that they'll apply their leverage. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 04:57:41 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 EAA21826 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACxl2-0004YA-Th for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9O8vKBF017454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACxl2-0004XR-Jt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:20 -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 EAA21782 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACxkz-00006I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACxky-00006F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:57:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACxkj-0004OX-DJ; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1ACxk9-0004Fa-B3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56:25 -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 EAA21698 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACxk5-00003P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56:21 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACxk4-00002L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 95508 invoked by uid 1013); 24 Oct 2003 08:55:39 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:55:39 +0200 On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:20:33AM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > No, you haven't thought that statement through. Sure I have. > Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the > IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add > this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. No, you have the IP of the host that injected it to the first MTA that recorded Received: headers. This may be the host that injected the message. This may be 127.0.0.1 or this may be the IP of an open proxy that made the connection to the SMTP port. > If you want to talk about open Proxy servers, or owned machines, that's > a different discussion, but in any case, if someone chooses to support > DRIP/RMX/whatever for their domain, and they list their open-relay MTA > as a server for their domain, then you'll probably want to blacklist > them ;-) About 95% of the spam we receive is from open proxy servers. Take a look at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/total-open-proxies.gif They had 450000 already back in July. So this is not a different discussion, it is /the/ discussion. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 09:43:43 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 JAA00261 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD2Dp-0004uU-Eq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9ODhL6R018836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD2Dp-0004tj-6M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:21 -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 JAA00256 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD2Dn-0003QY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD2Dm-0003QV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD2DV-0004i7-BC; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD2D7-0004cI-Kk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00233 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD2D5-0003Q1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:35 -0400 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD2D4-0003Py-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:35 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AD2Cy-0001vz-19 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:42:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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, 24 Oct 2003 14:42:28 +0100 > Take a look > at > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/total-open-proxies.gif > They had 450000 already back in July. And that was back in July 1900 -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 10:41:33 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 KAA03849 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD37p-000198-91 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OEfDJM004403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD37p-00018w-4f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03823 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD37m-00044v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD37l-00044s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD37d-000152-VZ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD37c-00014Y-BC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:41:00 -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 KAA03795 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD37Z-00044T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:40:58 -0400 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD37Z-00044L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:40:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 739 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2003 10:40:51 -0400 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 24 Oct 2003 10:40:51 -0400 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 19579 invoked by uid 101); 24 Oct 2003 10:40:51 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031024144051.GD25134@iridium.mv.net> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:40:51 -0400 On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:55:39AM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:20:33AM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > > No, you haven't thought that statement through. > > Sure I have. > > > Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the > > IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add > > this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. > > No, you have the IP of the host that injected it to the first MTA that > recorded Received: headers. > This may be the host that injected the message. This may be 127.0.0.1 or > this may be the IP of an open proxy that made the connection to the > SMTP port. You may have such a Received line, but you can only believe the one that is inserted by a mail server you operate or trust. There's no guarantee that any of the Received lines that appear in the header received by such a trusted server (i.e., the Received lines after that one) are legitimate. You can tell what IP address gave it to your trusted server (and if you know you can trust that one, you can follow one more level, and so forth). But you can't tell anything beyond that. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 14:10:50 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 OAA20752 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD6OL-00069c-V3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OIATfl023652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD6OL-00069O-QP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:29 -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 OAA20730 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD6OJ-0001vK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD6OI-0001vG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD6Ns-00064h-UV; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:10:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD6NE-0005sz-24 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:09:20 -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 OAA20719 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD6NB-0001v6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:09:17 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD6NA-0001v2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:09:16 -0400 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id C2B341F001; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:12:35 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031024181235.GO16254@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:12:35 -0400 > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:20:33AM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > > No, you haven't thought that statement through. > > Sure I have. > > > Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the > > IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add > > this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. > > No, you have the IP of the host that injected it to the first MTA that > recorded Received: headers. > This may be the host that injected the message. This may be 127.0.0.1 or > this may be the IP of an open proxy that made the connection to the > SMTP port. In your original message, Message-ID: <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> you said: > Which is worthless if it was injected via an open relay. ---------- I replied about open relays, and even said (included below) that if you want to talk about open _proxy servers_ that that is a different discussion, and that I agree that it's a problem. > > If you want to talk about open Proxy servers, or owned machines, that's > > a different discussion, but in any case, if someone chooses to support > > DRIP/RMX/whatever for their domain, and they list their open-relay MTA > > as a server for their domain, then you'll probably want to blacklist > > them ;-) > > About 95% of the spam we receive is from open proxy servers. Take a look at > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/total-open-proxies.gif > They had 450000 already back in July. > So this is not a different discussion, it is /the/ discussion. Open relays and open proxies are different discussions with regard to whether a 'useful' IP address will have been included in message headers. For relays, it will, for proxies, it won't. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:03:11 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 QAA27147 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD895-0004ly-5U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OK2p1B018340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD895-0004lj-0R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:51 -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 QAA27117 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD893-0003Xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD893-0003Xl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:02:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD88H-0004a4-Nx; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD87Q-0004Lk-U4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:01:09 -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 QAA26981 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD87P-0003Vv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:01:07 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD87O-0003VT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:01:06 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA002RK28R0O@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:00:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9984D8.7080604@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-based - News Article Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:00:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT CNET News.com has posted a news article about the reconciliation effort of different RMX protocols: http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5096820.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:15:30 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 QAA27782 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Kz-0007Nr-Ew for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKF9SK028377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Kz-0007Nc-9a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:09 -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 QAA27770 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8Kx-0003l3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8Kx-0003l0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Ks-0007K7-1Q; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8KY-0007H0-Hs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:14:43 -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 QAA27743 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8KW-0003kX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:14:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8KW-0003jM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:14:40 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA00M0P2UL5Y@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:13:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: To: Brad Knowles Cc: denny@figuerres.com, Asrg Message-id: <3F9987EA.9020607@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <000001c39800$a4417100$19602241@viper1> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:13:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per list guidelines. Mod.] Brad Knowles wrote: > At 2:25 PM -0400 2003/10/21, Denny Figuerres wrote: > >> Anonimity: as far as I am concerned if someone wants me to recive a >> message they should be willing to identify them selves. >> This does not mean you can not recive an email from an "unknown" party, >> but it does mean that I should be able to read a valid >> Email header that is not lying to me. > > > There are human rights workers around the world that have their > lives literally depending upon being able to send anonymous e-mail. You > will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, > thousands, maybe millions of people, if you do not account for this issue. > > Regardless of whatever else we may do, we must find a way to > preserve the ability to send e-mail anonymously for the people who need > this feature. Otherwise, we may never find out about SARS II, or the > next Tutsi-Hutu massacre until it is too late. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:21:25 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 QAA28012 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Qj-00009P-Ja for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKL5iu000575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Qj-00009C-DW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28003 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8Qh-0003oo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8Qh-0003ol-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8Qf-00006k-BZ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8QC-0008SK-5t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:20:32 -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 QAA27987 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8QA-0003oh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:20:30 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8Q9-0003oS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:20:30 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA00MJP3515Y@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:19:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031024181235.GO16254@mail> To: Asrg Message-id: <3F99895F.3070901@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> <20031024181235.GO16254@mail> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Recent Discussion Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:19:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I have been bedridden for a few days with a sickness and was not able to follow the list, so I was a bit suprised to find such a large volume of messages today, many under the same subject. Please keep in mind the mailing list guidelines at: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm It would be very helpful if you can change the subject of the thread when a message starts treading away to some other topic. Otherwise, reading something with the subject of "General" is hard to fugure out before opening it. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:29:31 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 QAA28227 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8YZ-0001le-Kw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKTB0U006788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8YZ-0001lP-Ge for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:11 -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 QAA28194 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8YX-0003sP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8YX-0003sM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:29:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8YP-0001gs-Lw; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD8YJ-0001g4-3u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:28:55 -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 QAA28186 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8YH-0003sB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:28:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8YG-0003s0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:28:52 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA002YZ3HOIU@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:27:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Message-id: <3F998B2B.2000103@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <20031022194603.5F58616FC7@jmason.org> <20031022200147.GD16254@mail> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:27:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Brad Knowles wrote: > At 4:01 PM -0400 2003/10/22, David Maxwell wrote: > >> If the choice is between 'all mail servers are open, and all users must >> accept spam' and 'mail servers authenticate connections in some way, and >> activists need to create their own infrastructure to get messages out' - >> I'll pick the second. > > > Would you be willing to bet your life on that? The life of your > family and friends? Would you be willing to have them tortured to death > while you watch, because you made this bet? > This reminds me of some relatives and their KGB stories :) In any case, the need for privacy and anonymity is so engrained within the Internet and IETF/IRTF culture, that sometimes it is hard to explain it to someone else since it is so basic. In fighting spam, if privacy and anonimity is touched, it needs to be explained why and how far. A very careful balance must be struck between privacy, anonimity and the need to authenticate people. For example, no need exists to autheticate individuals if servers can be authenticated, etc. Further, someone else at the IETF has once told that privacy and anonimity are considered core values of the IETF, and that things could get Orwellian really fast if privacy is surrendered; and anonymity is a fundamental component of privacy. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:33:26 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 QAA28424 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8cM-0002fa-Lk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKX6sN010256 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8cM-0002fH-Ef for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:06 -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 QAA28390 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8cK-0003wp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8cJ-0003wm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8cH-0002bO-D9; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8bT-0002Qi-6I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28333 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8bR-0003vX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:09 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8bQ-0003vL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:08 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA00MC53O55Y@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:31:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 2a. Analysis - Source - Open Relays and Proxies (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <20031024144051.GD25134@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Markus Stumpf , Asrg Message-id: <3F998C12.6030103@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> <20031024144051.GD25134@iridium.mv.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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:31:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Mark E. Mallett wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:55:39AM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: > >>On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:20:33AM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: >> >>>No, you haven't thought that statement through. >> >>Sure I have. >> >> >>>Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the >>>IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add >>>this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. >> >>No, you have the IP of the host that injected it to the first MTA that >>recorded Received: headers. >>This may be the host that injected the message. This may be 127.0.0.1 or >>this may be the IP of an open proxy that made the connection to the >>SMTP port. > > > You may have such a Received line, but you can only believe the one > that is inserted by a mail server you operate or trust. There's no > guarantee that any of the Received lines that appear in the header > received by such a trusted server (i.e., the Received lines after that > one) are legitimate. > > You can tell what IP address gave it to your trusted server (and if you > know you can trust that one, you can follow one more level, and so forth). > But you can't tell anything beyond that. > Add to that mix various trojans and viruses, and that makes this statement even more true. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:34:23 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 QAA28496 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8dI-00032S-26 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKY4PV011674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8dH-00032D-UL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:03 -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 QAA28458 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8dG-0003xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8dF-0003xl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8dG-0002z9-62; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:34:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8cM-0002fB-87 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:06 -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 QAA28386 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8cJ-0003wl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:03 -0400 Received: from sneakemail.com ([207.106.87.13] helo=monkey.sneakemail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8cI-0003vk-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:33:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 16299 invoked by uid 501); 24 Oct 2003 20:32:18 -0000 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General amusement Encoding: 8bit From: "John Stanley" Message-ID: <16117-29592@sneakemail.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: 24 Oct 2003 20:32:18 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Stumpf maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg-at-Space.Net Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:55 am Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General [... snip ...] > > About 95% of the spam we receive is from open proxy servers. Take a look at > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/total-open-proxies.gif > They had 450000 already back in July. > So this is not a different discussion, it is /the/ discussion. Markus, I have a certain amount of difficulty accepting the accuracy of any graph that indicates more than 0 open proxies existed back in 1900... ... JLS _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:49:26 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 QAA29128 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8rr-0006aT-1P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKn6ZR025315 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8rq-0006aE-SZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:06 -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 QAA29094 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8ro-0004CJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8ro-0004CE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:49:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8rl-0006WY-0h; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD8rJ-0006PG-8T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:33 -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 QAA29070 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8rH-0004C4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:31 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8rG-0004C1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:30 -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 1AD8rD-0000Ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:27 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:27:23 EDT." <3F998B2B.2000103@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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:48:27 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Further, someone else at the IETF has once told that privacy and > anonimity are considered core values of the IETF, and that > things could get Orwellian really fast if privacy is surrendered; and > anonymity is a fundamental component of privacy. My concern is that I don't see a requirement that SMTP should solve all of the worlds problems. I understand that SMTP should not *remove* peoples privacy and anonymity. But there is no requirement (and there SHOULD be no requirement) that SMTP creates privacy and anonymity, where there was none before. e.g. If the vaunted "human rights workers" don't have access to computers, there are still many ways for them to get their message out to the rest of the world. The mere existence of access to computers & SMTP changes nothing. If they want to be anonymous and private when sending information to the rest of the world, there are hundreds of methods outside of SMTP that they can use. Further, I believe that the emotional appeal to human rights workers is inappropriate in a professional forum. Arguments of the form "If you're for proposal X, then you're for killing people!" should be explicitly outside of the scope of ASRG. We can solve any necessary issues without resorting to polemics. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:53:28 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 QAA29291 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8vi-0007Qp-D4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKr6Ks028561 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8vh-0007Qa-Th for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:05 -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 QAA29244 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8vf-0004FQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8vf-0004FN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8vd-0007KT-Cv; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD8uq-0007EB-Jy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:52:12 -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 QAA29213 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8uo-0004Ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:52:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8uo-0004EK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:52:10 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA002HK4KRIU@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:50:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9990A9.5070905@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 7. BCP - Auto-Responders - IESG deadline on 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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:50:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This has been mentioned before. The following Internet draft is under IESG consideration for a Proposed Internet Standard: "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail (Proposed Standard)" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt Deadline for comments is October 31st, 2003, comments should be sent to iesg@ietf.org or the main IETF list, ietf@ietf.org. Of course, a discussion is welcome here but the IESG are the ones that need to hear it. There are only a few days left for the comment period. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 16:54:23 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 QAA29379 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8we-0007eN-15 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OKs45w029401 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8wd-0007e8-Sc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:03 -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 QAA29349 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8wb-0004Gq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8wb-0004Gn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:54:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD8wb-0007bt-Vl; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD8wN-0007ZC-84 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:48 -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 QAA29312 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8wL-0004GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD8wK-0004Fq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:44 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-686.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.37]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNA00G1R4OLVV@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:53:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F999134.7060401@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Further, someone else at the IETF has once told that privacy and >>anonimity are considered core values of the IETF, and that >>things could get Orwellian really fast if privacy is surrendered; and >>anonymity is a fundamental component of privacy. > > > My concern is that I don't see a requirement that SMTP should solve > all of the worlds problems. I understand that SMTP should not > *remove* peoples privacy and anonymity. But there is no requirement > (and there SHOULD be no requirement) that SMTP creates privacy and > anonymity, where there was none before. > Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 17:20:36 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 RAA00497 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9Lx-0004kd-EF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OLKDah018257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9Lw-0004kO-Jk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:12 -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 RAA00471 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9Lu-0004da-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9Lu-0004dW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9Ln-0004bC-Hy; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:20:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9LQ-0004WV-8C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00436 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9LN-0004dE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:37 -0400 Received: from srv01.allenhost.com ([216.127.68.90]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9LN-0004ch-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:37 -0400 Received: from babastik1 ([0.0.0.0]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by srv01.allenhost.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9OLVMW30735 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:31:22 -0500 Message-ID: <006c01c39a74$750ac5f0$0a00a8c0@babastik1> From: "Brian Adams" To: References: <3F999134.7060401@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Organization: Babastik MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 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, 24 Oct 2003 14:19:05 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever=20 > anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. Agreed, lets be careful, but let us not forget that preserving the = ability for any MTA to accept anonymous email means that spammers will = forever be able to send anonymous spam. No two ways about it. Please = consider that the current system has resulted in the SPAM epidemic. We = HAVE to change something to fix the bigger problem. For a majority of = people receiving anonymous email is not a feature of any value. If = certain organization desire to receive anonymous email, let them setup = servers that accept email regardless of origin. I can see governments, = human rights organizations, and press outlets all providing such a = service. For the rest of the world... lets add the ability to certify = the sender and close the SMTP exploit that is being abused by spammers. Brian Adams _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 17:29:58 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 RAA01031 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9V3-0006dB-1w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OLTbgO025483 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD9V2-0006cw-Tp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:36 -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 RAA00906 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9V0-0004oB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:29:34 -0400 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD9JQ-0004Wt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:17:36 -0400 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AD96W-00011R-T4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:04:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AD96H-00014F-2k; Fri, 24 Oct 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 1AD95M-0000qZ-Gf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29764 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD95K-0004Pt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:03:02 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AD95J-0004Pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:03:01 -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 1AD95H-0000Fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:02:59 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:53:08 EDT." <3F999134.7060401@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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:02:59 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever > anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. I agree. As I understand the RMX-style proposals, they do not remove any anonymity. They add accountability, but only under the mutual consent of the message originator and recipient. If the sender does not wish to be accountable, they can choose to not send messages to the recipient. People who wish to remain anonymous can use throw-away accounts, paid for in cash. The problem isn't hard to solve, and the solution very often has nothing to do with SMTP. As was pointed out earlier, the "human rights activist" isn't randomly spamming people. Instead, (s)he's sending targeted messages to people who want to receive them. Mutual consent exists, so any anonymity, privace, and accountability issues become whatever the two parties agree to. If the human rights worker *does* resort to randomly spamming people with their messages, then it's my perogative as a recipient MTA to ignore their message. But in no way does this non-consent to spam make me responsible for people dying. I have no polite words for arguments which would make me responsible for any deaths as a result of me choosing to not accept spam. Those arguments are not just counter-productive, they're actively hostile to free speech and freedom of choice. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 24 18:35:32 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 SAA04377 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADAWX-0002fe-Q2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9OMZDKB010262 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADAWX-0002fR-Ku for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:13 -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 SAA04365 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADAWU-0005fI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADAWU-0005fF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADAWM-0002cm-Na; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADAVp-0002a2-93 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:34:29 -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 SAA04336 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADAVm-0005eX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:34:26 -0400 Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADAVl-0005eS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:34:25 -0400 Received: from fwd08.aul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1ADAVJ-0003oQ-03; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:33:57 +0200 Received: from warrior.da3.net-operations.de (Z4U23kZJZeBMq96mDToVEFJPtQrxOQcLfOBcz0QdVptYY2xl4P8D0W@[217.82.41.129]) by fmrl08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1ADAVG-1xVgum0; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:33:54 +0200 Received: from net-operations.de (flip.da3.net-operations.de [172.17.2.133]) by warrior.da3.net-operations.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h9ON5l4v005873 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:05:47 +0200 Message-ID: <3F96FF7C.9040006@net-operations.de> From: Florian Kunkel Organization: http://www.net-operations.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030908 Debian/1.4-4 X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-US, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <3F999134.7060401@solidmatrix.com> <006c01c39a74$750ac5f0$0a00a8c0@babastik1> In-Reply-To: <006c01c39a74$750ac5f0$0a00a8c0@babastik1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Seen: false X-ID: Z4U23kZJZeBMq96mDToVEFJPtQrxOQcLfOBcz0QdVptYY2xl4P8D0W@t-dialin.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: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:06:52 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Agreed, lets be careful, but let us not forget that preserving the > ability for any MTA to accept anonymous email means that spammers > will forever be able to send anonymous spam. no it does not. you have to distinguish between users authenticated to the relay but sending anonymous emails and anonymous users using open relays. there's no problem with sending anonymous emails if you are authenticated to the relay operator. usually your access provider offers such a relay service. open relays indicate the inability of their operator to act responsible in the internet. ... partly misled by click and pray software vendors. Florian! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 25 05:15:45 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 FAA00286 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADKW2-0000St-S3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9P9FMW9001788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADKW2-0000Sl-KP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:22 -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 FAA00275 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADKVz-00034T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADKVy-00034Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADKVh-0000O0-IH; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADKV1-0000LE-IS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:14:19 -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 FAA00267 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADKUy-00032t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:14:16 -0400 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADKUx-00032q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:14:15 -0400 Received: from [203.121.161.48] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9P9E4C7035008; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:14:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> To: David Maxwell From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Brad Knowles , 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: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:18:07 +0700 At 12:08 PM -0400 2003/10/23, David Maxwell wrote: > I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP > than I do as an individual. That's assuming that the ISP in question is local. That's not necessarily a valid assumption. Moreover, with header faking, it can be difficult to determine which IP addresses are real and which ones aren't. Governments can't bug every single ISP in the world. They could reasonably bug every single known anonymous remailer. > It seems to me that this means spammers can > use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't > use it to hide from governments. I disagree. I think there are techniques that are used by spammers that could also help activists further hide the source of their connections. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 25 09:39:45 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 JAA05036 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADOdY-0008EC-DM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9PDdOCR031622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADOdY-0008Dx-6w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:24 -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 JAA05027 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADOdW-0005CJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADOdW-0005CG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADOdB-000893-KQ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADOd4-000884-CV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:38:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05006 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADOd2-0005Bo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:38:52 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADOd1-0005Bl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:38:51 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9PDcovW010568; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 06:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 06:38:50 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113162@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brian Adams'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 25 Oct 2003 06:38:48 -0700 > > > Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever > > anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. > > Agreed, lets be careful, but let us not forget that > preserving the ability for any MTA to accept anonymous email > means that spammers will forever be able to send anonymous > spam. No two ways about it. Actually this is not quite right. There are two levels of anonymity 1) Anonymity of the email sender 2) Anonymity of the ISP from which the email is sent The key is the level at which you intend to hold the sender accountable. There is no way that we can build a system to hold a billion people individually accountable for their email. But we can hold ISPs accountable and nobody is that bothered by the question of ISP accountability. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 25 22:35:07 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 WAA22989 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADajv-00005m-VV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9Q2Ylai000348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADajv-00005X-Ov for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:47 -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 WAA22983 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADajs-0005hY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADajs-0005hT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADajB-0008SB-Ku; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADaiw-0008R5-AW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:33:46 -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 WAA22969 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADais-0005h7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:33:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADais-0005gx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:33:42 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-600.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNC0072WF3439@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:33:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9B325B.20805@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Effect on Users - Article Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 25 Oct 2003 22:32:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The Pew Research Center has released a new study on spam and its effect on users: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=102 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Oct 25 22:36:22 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 WAA23029 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADal9-0000Mv-CG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:36:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9Q2a3I1001411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADal9-0000MW-6P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23020 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADal5-0005iL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADal5-0005iI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADal7-0000H0-U2; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADal3-0000GZ-9l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23012 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADakz-0005i9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADakz-0005hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:53 -0400 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-600.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNC0077TF6WFT@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:35:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9B32E6.2010608@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US - Article Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 25 Oct 2003 22:35:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In case you have not heard yet, Senate has passed an anti-spam bill last week. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20031023/tc_usatoday/11917360 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/congress.spam.reut/index.html The House is still working on reconciliation efforts between different proposals. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 01:04:35 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 BAA26668 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0b-0002N1-3O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9Q64Do2009101 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0a-0002Md-RR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26648 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0X-0007eQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0W-0007eM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0P-0002Ht-6i; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADdza-0002G5-E5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26634 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADdzW-0007e8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADdzW-0007dt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-600.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNC000L9OS830@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:02:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113162@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brian Adams'" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F9B6375.9010906@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113162@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:02:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>>Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever >>>anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. >> >>Agreed, lets be careful, but let us not forget that >>preserving the ability for any MTA to accept anonymous email >>means that spammers will forever be able to send anonymous >>spam. No two ways about it. > > > Actually this is not quite right. There are two levels of anonymity > > 1) Anonymity of the email sender > 2) Anonymity of the ISP from which the email is sent > > > The key is the level at which you intend to hold the sender accountable. > There is no way that we can build a system to hold a billion people > individually accountable for their email. But we can hold ISPs accountable > and nobody is that bothered by the question of ISP accountability. > When you hold ISPs responsible, you are holding them accountable for their users. How far will that ago? If an ISP allows some anonymous usage with lets say a rate limiter or free email, how long will it take until spammers start abusing that and ISPs will begin to shut down such services? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 01:04:39 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 BAA26683 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0b-0002N8-56 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9Q64DJU009113 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0a-0002Mm-W7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26650 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0X-0007eT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0X-0007eN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0P-0002I1-Nw; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe0M-0002HW-5P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26644 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0I-0007eJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:54 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe0I-0007eG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:54 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-600.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNC00JHGOTKQX@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:03:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 3. Requirements - Anomity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: To: Brad Knowles Cc: David Maxwell , Asrg Message-id: <3F9B63A6.40606@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Oct 2003 01:03:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed inline with guidelines. Mod.] Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:08 PM -0400 2003/10/23, David Maxwell wrote: > >> I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP >> than I do as an individual. > > > That's assuming that the ISP in question is local. That's not > necessarily a valid assumption. Moreover, with header faking, it can be > difficult to determine which IP addresses are real and which ones aren't. > > Governments can't bug every single ISP in the world. They could > reasonably bug every single known anonymous remailer. > >> It seems to me that this means spammers can >> use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't >> use it to hide from governments. > > > I disagree. I think there are techniques that are used by spammers > that could also help activists further hide the source of their > connections. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 01:09:22 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 BAA26776 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe5H-0003DI-RF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9Q6939S012346 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe5H-0003D3-N8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26762 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:08:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe5E-0007hD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe5D-0007hA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:08:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe5F-00035y-MD; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADe4J-000327-PM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26744 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe4G-0007gh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:08:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADe4F-0007g7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:07:59 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-600.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNC006UOOX69V@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:05:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <3F9B63A6.40606@solidmatrix.com> To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9B6427.2090908@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <3F9B63A6.40606@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:05:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Spelling mistake, subject changed again, sorry. Mod.] Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > [Subject changed inline with guidelines. Mod.] > > Brad Knowles wrote: > >> At 12:08 PM -0400 2003/10/23, David Maxwell wrote: >> >>> I believe the government in question has _far more_ leverage on the ISP >>> than I do as an individual. >> >> >> >> That's assuming that the ISP in question is local. That's not >> necessarily a valid assumption. Moreover, with header faking, it can >> be difficult to determine which IP addresses are real and which ones >> aren't. >> >> Governments can't bug every single ISP in the world. They could >> reasonably bug every single known anonymous remailer. >> >>> It seems to me that this means spammers can >>> use the difficulty of this mapping to hide from me, and activists can't >>> use it to hide from governments. >> >> >> >> I disagree. I think there are techniques that are used by >> spammers that could also help activists further hide the source of >> their connections. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 26 14:44:27 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 OAA25431 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADqo2-0007C8-Tj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9QJi62l027657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADqo2-0007C0-Ny for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25410 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADqo0-00007h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADqnz-00007e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADqnx-00079p-JM; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADqnw-00079e-Pu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25407 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:43:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADqnu-00007a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:43:58 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADqnt-00007K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:43:57 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-603.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.228.48]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HND00GNYQNXOU@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:40:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Double Postings (was Re: [Asrg] postings double?? (off ASRG topic)) In-reply-to: To: Brad Knowles Cc: Tom Thomson , Asrg Message-id: <3F9C2338.9080404@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Oct 2003 14:40:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT First of all, cool things down a bit. Second, people will continue to do double-replies, and talking about wit will not help. If you want to continue discussing mailing list design, this is outside the scope of the ASRG. Yakov Brad Knowles wrote: > At 4:12 PM +0100 2003/10/23, Tom Thomson wrote: > >> Some lists are designed to >> anonymise >> the originator of the message; the design of such a list will be broken >> instantly by a decision not to munge the Reply-To header. > > > Those lists are very uncommon, and are not the audience that is > being addressed by the previously mentioned page. If you want to set up > an anonymizing list, then obviously you would have some additional > requirements that you would need to meet. > >> For many >> lists, >> the most commonly intended reply action is to send the reply to the list >> without a second copy to the originator: as the most common action, it >> should be achievable with a single mouse-click or key-stroke > > > In an ideal world, that would be easily achievable. > > This is not an ideal world. > >> - and >> almost >> all the MUAs out there will not allow you to do that if the list >> software >> doesn't munge the Reply-To header. > > > So we break something for many users for whom there is no > alternative, simply to make it easier for other users to do the > "default" action, and for whom if they don't want the default action > they're usually also screwed? > > This sounds like an extremely brain-damaged idea. > >> For other lists the most commonly >> required reply action is a reply to the list moderator - again, Reply-To >> header munging is required to make this the default action of most MUAs. > > > Again, not the most common type of list, and for which the > previously quoted page is not attempting to address. > >> Each list has its own requirements, the standardised >> message of >> RFC2822 is not adequate to cover all these requirements without header >> munging. > > > Agreed -- you can't use header munging to conform to the issues and > requirements of all mailing lists, especially not with all MUAs (since > many are severely broken). > > Therefore, you should make no attempt to use header munging for this > purpose. > >> What I want out of an MUA is to be able to chose between reply to >> originator, reply to list, reply to list with copy to originator, >> reply to >> list with copy to cc reipients of the original message, .... quite a few >> options. > > > Get a better MUA. Don't try to fix this problem within the mailing > list. > >> The headers provided by RFC2822 are not adequate to permit >> an MUA >> to offer all these options in a simple and straightforward usable >> manner. > > > Sounds like you need to write an RFC to detail all these issues and > lay out the suggestions for MUA authors. > >> So I think this list would probably be >> improved >> by adding the munging > > > That's assuming that no one on the list (currently or in the future) > is/will be using an MUA that is known to be severely broken, in such a > way that they are completely unable to reply to any message other than > what is specified in the "Reply-To:" header. > > Not a valid assumption. > >> - biut I don't think it's worth arguing about; > > > Then why are we having this argument? > >> >> what I >> do think is worth arguing about is someone claiming that as a general >> principal such munging should not be done: the RFCs make no attenmpt to >> dictate to me (or anyone else) what features I should put into >> applications >> I supply to my users, and I don't like to see Chip claiming they do and >> neither do I like to see Brad quoting him as if he were holy writ. > > > His page hasn't been updated to make reference to the latest RFCs, > but then it doesn't really need to. The issues with regards to the > broken MUAs haven't changed, and many sites are still running the same > ten-year old software that was at the heart of the problem originally, > which lead to Chip writing that page. > > If the problem hasn't changed, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense > to try to update the description of the problem, or recommendations on > how to avoid tickling the problem and making it even worse. > > > I make reference to this page because it's the best collection I've > seen yet for the various problems and the ways to deal with them. > > Would you prefer that I write all this up as an RFC and really set > things in stone? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 17:16:45 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 RAA29850 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtBS-0000lT-Qr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9QMGQWS002940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtBS-0000lL-Kv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29771 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtBQ-0001Mt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:24 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtBP-0001Mf-03 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:16:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ADt9K-0004lS-QC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:14:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADt97-0000Ve-IZ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADt8F-0000Sl-Pa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29722 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADt8D-0001L8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:13:05 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADt8C-0001L5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:13:05 -0500 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 1ADt8O-0000sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:13:16 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:21:35 +0700." 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, 26 Oct 2003 17:13:10 -0500 Brad Knowles wrote: > The problem is that the SMTP protocol exists, and in its current > form, there are a number of "features" which can be extracted. We're > here to try to address some of these "features", which have > manifested themselves as spam. However, there are other groups in > the world that have become dependant on some of these features (which > may or may not overlap with the "spam" features). SMTP was designed and intended to be used in a trusted environment. Therefore, it has no design features to prevent spam, and no design features to help protect the lives of human rights workers. Anyone relying on RFC 2821 SMTP for either "feature" is fooling themselves. > I didn't say "If you're for proposal X, then you're for killing > people!" That is an unwarranted and inappropriate mis-representation > of my statement. I guess I misunderstood: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07714.html where you opposed header verification, and claimed that such verification "will literally be responsible for the murder of tens, hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people," I don't see hysteria as helping the discussion. > Many people's lives could literally be at stake here, and no one > has given any consideration to how they could be affected by the > kinds of things we're talking about. You're the first one I'm aware of who has listed "saving lives of human rights workers" as a protocol design goal of SMTP. Maybe that means everyone else doesn't care. More likely, it means that everyone else thinks it's outside of the scope of SMTP> Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 17:23:25 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 RAA00226 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtHv-00018z-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9QMN7dD004391 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtHv-00018k-Qb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00158 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtHt-0001Rz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtHt-0001Rw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtHo-00014V-RK; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADtGu-00012b-DL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00065 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtGs-0001Qr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:02 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADtGr-0001Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:01 -0500 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 1ADtH8-0000sd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:18 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:29:52 +0700." 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, 26 Oct 2003 17:22:18 -0500 Brad Knowles wrote: > If you don't want to be held accountable for telling the world > about SARS II, you can choose not to speak. > > Sounds like a solution the Chinese government would love. Nice. Can we bring the Nazi's into the conversation, too? > How many recipients in this world have total control over the > mail system that they use? If the operator of their mail system > chooses to filter all their mail through the Chinese government, what > choice do they have? Telephones? Radios? Carrier pigeons? Couriers? Letters? Word of mouth? Stegonography? Webmail? SUBMIT? FTP? Bi-directional POP? IMAP? Chat? Web discussion forums? Instant Messaging? The list can go on ... Is it really that difficult to figure out? You are operating under the implicit assumption that all of the worlds problems must be solved via SMTP. I fail to see why. The world is much bigger than SMTP. I feel like I'm seriously missing something in this conversation, like a hidden agenda. I hate it when that happens. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 20:41:37 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 UAA07620 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNg-0000T3-5l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9R1fGIv001793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNf-0000Sq-W5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07603 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwNd-0004BO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwNd-0004BL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwNR-0000Q6-Mu; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADwMp-0000Nt-H9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07578 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwMn-0004B4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:21 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADwMm-0004B0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:40:20 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-26-14-21.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-14-21.kc.rr.com [65.26.14.21]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h9R1dIhL021568; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:39:20 -0600 (CST) From: david nicol To: Alan DeKok Cc: anti-spam research group , Adonis El Fakih In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067218757.1070.21.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 Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - RMX-listing abstractions discussion Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 26 Oct 2003 19:39:17 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 10:54, Alan DeKok wrote: > david nicol wrote: > > Okay, DRIP > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-01.txt > > is very similar; however instead of > .. > > OMX would have example.com list > > > > omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.10 > > omx.m.example.com IN A 192.0.2.11 > > Which is overkill. The recipients of a message want to know if a > particular IP is marked as "sending MX". Forcing the recipient to > wade through tons of unwanted information is inefficient. one UDP packet is not "tons of unwanted information." We're looking at at most seven integers and seeing if the one we are interested in is equal to one of them. > This was my preference: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-02.txt > > It appears to have expired, though. > > "designated senders" are looked up by reverse IP, which is simple to > configure in DNS, and allows simple wildcarding for the "third-party > relaying" issue. Further, the response can be a TXT record, with > additional consent information. > > The other benefit is that when the recipient MTA asks "is this IP > permitted to send messages as your domain?", then the response is > "yes", or "no", or "unknown". This response is much more helpful than > most similar proposals, which involve responding with huge amounts of > information. > > Alan DeKok. The "cram-them-all-into-A-records" method is meant to simplify DNS administration. It is the simplest possible approach. The second approach, suggested in the extended listing draft as appropriate when there are many addresses to list, gives at least 32 bits of information in the response. We could mask off 32 bits of AAAA record and have equivalence. I understand your preference for more information in the response than a binary listed/not-listed to imply a preference for defining only a reverse-style listing and deprecating the arguably simpler multiple A-records listing style at all, in proposed listing mechanisms. -- david nicol / A thousand towers rise before me and I cannot climb them all. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Oct 26 22:53:01 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 WAA10717 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADyQs-0003KF-Me for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9R3qg2g012777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADyQs-0003K0-HV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10708 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADyQp-0005bJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADyQo-0005bF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADyQC-0003DT-T2; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ADyPW-00039u-CD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:51:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10692 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADyPS-0005at-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:51:14 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ADyPS-0005aR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:51:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-603.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.228.48]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNE004QYDCFGA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:50:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9C960C.20207@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Welcome to the ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:50:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Welcome to the mailing list of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This message is sent out to the mailing list at regular intervals in order to remind group members and inform newcomers about various aspects of the ASRG. In addition to this message, additional messages will be sent on a regular basis providing updates on work items and summarizing mailing list discussions. 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS. o There are still many open items on the research agenda not been taken care of. WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to take care of things, if you would like to help please post to the list or contact the chair off-list. o All suggestions on how to improve the group are welcome, please email us! 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ASRG. The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam. The purpose of the ASRG is to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively PROPOSE and EVALUATE solutions to the problem.The ASRG is part of the IRTF. The IRTF focuses on longer term research issues related to the Internet while the parallel organization, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), focuses on the shorter term issues of engineering and standards making. The operations of the IRTF and its research groups are discussed in detail in RFC 2014 (BCP 8). 2. INTERIM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_ipr_policy.htm). "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties." 3. MAILING LIST INFORMATION AND POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm). If you want to change your mailing list options, please visit the mailing list page at (https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). If the volume of messages is too high for you, you can choose to receive a daily digest of list messages instead of individual posts. All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work items outlined in the ASRG Research Agenda document. 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. NOTE: The moderator or chair may at their discretion moderate posting privileges of participants who ignore these guidelines. If they do so they will announce the fact to the list, with an explanation. 4. ASRG RESEARCH AGENDA (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm). The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. The Research Agenda lists different areas of research that the ASRG is pursuing. 5. ASRG WORK ITEM STATUS (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm). This lists the current work items showing owner and status. Each item also shows the associated item number from the research agenda. 6. MAIN ASRG PLAYERS. Paul Judge - ASRG Co-Chair Yakov Shafranovich - ASRG Co-Chair 7. IMPORTANT LINKS. ASRG charter - http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Official ASRG website - http://www.irtf.org/asrg Mailing list options - https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Mailing list archive - https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html Search engine for the archive - http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg IRTF website - http://www.irtf.org IETF website - http://www.ietf.org IAB website - http://www.iab.org RFC 2014 (BCP 8) - ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2014.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 04:15:38 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 EAA02651 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE3T5-0002KO-O4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9R9FJwQ008943 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE3T5-0002KA-7z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02614 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE3T2-0001aj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE3T2-0001ag-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE3Sq-0002Gm-NV; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:15:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE3SU-0002F0-TS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:14:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02583 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:14:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE3SS-0001ZW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:14:40 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE3SR-0001ZS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:14:39 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AE3SN-0001O1-J9 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:14:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:14:35 +0000 Either a. We're challenging the anonymity section in the requirements document. - I guess if there's a consensus that this isn't a requirement it would be struck out. Or b. We go with the requirements in this matter and accept that all proposals must (explicitly) "address issues of accountability and anonymity" - a paradoxical but key assertion. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 07:16:35 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 HAA08917 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE6IA-0003d9-Jw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RCGEKu013955 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE6IA-0003d0-Br for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08903 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE6I9-0003uQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE6I9-0003uN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE6Hz-0003a9-22; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:16:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE6Hh-0003Yu-R0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:15:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08886 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE6Hh-0003tq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:15:45 -0500 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 1AE6Hg-0003tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:15:45 -0500 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:22:45 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3F999134.7060401@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2003 12:22:45.0381 (UTC) FILETIME=[06B7FB50:01C39C85] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 12:15:43 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Nevertheless, we should tread carefully on removing on whatever > anonimity is currently being granted by SMTP. It's really pretty straightforward, isn't it. Some people want to receive anonymous mail. Others don't. So why don't we have a protocol that provides several classes of service: anonymous mail, mail where the originating server is authenticated, mail where the sender is authenticated, maybe mail where teh country of origin is authenticated, maybe a few more classes. Individual email users can choose to accept one or more of these three classes of mail. Organisations concerned with civil rights will presumably accept all classes, others will presumably accept a restricted set. Someone spamming for a seller of unprescribe prescription deugs is not going to get much mileage out of his spam if the only people who can receive it are human rights workers, so providing a decent set of classes will effectively kill off such spammers. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 09:04:32 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 JAA13285 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE7ye-0004N5-Ok for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RE4CpR016800 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE7ye-0004Mt-Jp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13262 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE7yd-0005IR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE7yc-0005IO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE7yT-0004K1-IG; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE7xb-0004Ed-Bs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13222 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE7xZ-0005HF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:03:05 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE7xZ-0005HC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:03:05 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027140303.HYPQ527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:03:03 -0600 Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Tom Thomson Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067263321.3115.53.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 09:02:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Everyone, I'm new to the group, and have spent the past year or so working on the DSPAM project (http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/), as well as working with the spamfilt group (a private group of other anti-spam tool developers, mathematicians, and scientists). I recently put together a draft we're submitting for RFC at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-spamfilt-inoculation-00.txt after the next meeting is over. Anyhow, I had a few comments to inject into this discussion that may or may not be helpful. Being new to the list, some of these things may have already been discussed. I had been discussing the concept of an authenticated SMTP system with a few individuals for quite some time. We've gone over many different scenarios from using cipher keys in DNS records to full blown digitally signed SMTP. Ultimately one problem still remained: The public would demand that authentication be something that can be easily implemented (whether it be on a domain-name level, or even per-user), but if that's the case then spammers, being that their nature involves both unethical and sometimes illegal practices, would easily be able to create new "authenticated" domains, companies, or users on a daily or weekly basis to circumvent this mode of spam prevention. It's a great concept, but in order to work we would need to find a way to prevent spammers from being able to authenticate on this system, and being that every country has their own set of laws (or lack thereof) about spam, identification practices, etc., implementing any type of authentication will only make it more difficult until spammers come up with a system of adapting to this new environment (e.g. either authenticating a new domain, company, or person every few days, or finding a way to steal existing identities). My other concern with removing anonymity are the massive number of issues it opens up for 1. government big-brother monitoring, 2. significant liability issues, and 3. further commercialization of the Internet by evil companies. The reasoning behind this is that any authenticated system that made it impossible for a spammer to simply generate their own keys, etc., would require the implementation of some form of a central registry and identification process, which leads to all of these issues, and even further privacy issues down the road. Not to mention, full blown authenticated mail puts companies like Hotmail in a precarious situation. I'd personally rather have spam sent to my email box than have to deal with any of these bigger headaches. Basically what I'm saying is that an authentication mechanism will stop spammers in the present-day environment of sending spam, however since this authentication mechanism must be made available to any entity sending legitimate email, spammers would easily be able to adapt to operate in an authenticated SMTP environment, even if you apply the "shotgun" theory of chasing after them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 09:34:43 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 JAA15942 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8Rs-00006b-SN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9REYOFN000399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8Rs-000066-Kz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15913 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8Ro-0005oI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8Ro-0005oF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8RV-0008T2-6j; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8Qp-0008Pt-94 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15889 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8Qn-0005nr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:17 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8Qm-0005no-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:16 -0500 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 1AE8R9-00014G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:39 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:14:35 GMT." 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, 27 Oct 2003 09:33:39 -0500 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > Either > a. We're challenging the anonymity section in the requirements document. > - I guess if there's a consensus that this isn't a requirement it would be > struck out. Anonymity is unrelated to many of the anti-spam systems. As PHB pointed out, holding an ISP accountable for a message means that a user of that ISP can still be anonymous. There is no requirement that the user ID at that ISP map to a real person, in a well-known fashion. There is no requirement that the ISP know a users real identity, and not accept cash transactions from anonymous people off of the street. In places where people CANNOT be anonymous to an ISP, they CANNOT use SMTP to create anonymity where none existed before. They MUST use other methods to send anonymous messages. Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 09:49:25 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 JAA16850 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8g6-0001qD-US for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9REn6cH007071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8g6-0001py-Pg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16835 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:48:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8g4-00063m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8g4-00063j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8g1-0001lp-93; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8fE-0001h0-QU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:48:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16774 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8fC-00062t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:48:11 -0500 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 1AE8fC-00062j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:48:10 -0500 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:55:07 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-based - News Article 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3F9984D8.7080604@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2003 14:55:07.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FE2DBF0:01C39C9A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:05 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > CNET News.com has posted a news article about the reconciliation effort > of different RMX protocols: > > http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5096820.html > I hope it's an inaccurate report and that this is a misquotation:- > "Once you have reputation systems that work on the basis of domains, which spammers cannot forge, then no matter how many machines you hack into, you still have to use the spammer's domain," Wong said. "And that's how we'll get you." So far as I can see, once you've hacked into a machine and maybe taken it over with your nasty little trojan, you can send email from that machine's domain to your heart's content; so what's this "you still have to use the spammer's domain" stuff? I'm even more worried about the quoted claim that there's no need for legislation, reputation systems will do it all for us, in case legislators in some jurisdictions are stupid enough to believe it. As long as it costs peanuts to set up a new domain (and only few more peanuts to set up a small ISP) either the reputation system is worthless against spammers or it's just a big a barrier to legitimate new entrants to the internet as it is to spammers. An authentication system can either wait for long enough for a domain or an ISP to develop a bad reputation and allow masses of spam through from new domains and ISPs in the meantime, or treat alll new ISPs and domains as having a bad reputation and destroy the usefulness of new domains and ISPs - making the internet effrectively a monopoly of current players; I'm not suficiently cynical to suggest that the reason for this suggestion is that some of the subcommittee are current players who are seing big dollar signs, but I sure will suggest that they are not living in the real world if the really said that and it's not an artifact of misreporting. Combining authentication with legislation which provides suitable penalties would close that hole - and I don't see another way of closing it. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 10:07:34 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 KAA18159 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8xf-0003nq-Cb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RF7Fu2014612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8xe-0003nb-VF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18085 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8xc-0006IW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8xc-0006IT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8xR-0003jm-5x; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE8wn-0003g6-8L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17968 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8wl-0006Hj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:19 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE8wk-0006Hg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:18 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id C250E180BB for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:05:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <003501c39c9b$dec98ac0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 V6.00.2800.1165 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Anonymity is unrelated to many of the anti-spam systems. > As PHB pointed out, holding an ISP accountable for a message > means that a user of that ISP can still be anonymous. Can an ISP be held accountable for a message and still ensure privacy and free-speech? On a more technical level, should an ISP inspect every outgoing message and ensure that it's not spam? Is the anti-spam war more easily fought at the source than at the sink? Rather than just make this rhetorical, there are two types of ISPs: A) Consumer access: Dial, DSL, Cable, Lease line B) Content access: Hosting, DS3s... Regarding consumer access, most ISPs place port 25 filters on their access lines. A sender can only send email to a subset of email relays. This works moderately well. Most spammers have many alternatives for sending email (see item B) rather than via the ISPs mail server specified within the port 25 access list. Regarding content access, datacenters essentially do next to nothing to restrict spammers. In many cases, I receive UBE notices from ISP providers where the spam originated from their own datacenter. Considering that datacenters make money on Mbps...they are not concerned with the excessive traffic generated by spammers. Some datacenters are essentially spam magnets. In these cases various relay DBs attempt to find these sources and block them...but the effort is futile. I am still amazed that lawsuits go after the companies generating the spam rather than the datacenters that turn a blind-eye towards them and provide all the infrastructure to accommodate. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 11:00:29 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 LAA21596 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9mt-0001AY-4d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RG0BZu004488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9ms-0001AJ-Sx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21562 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9mq-00075n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9mq-00075k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9ml-00017d-3S; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9m2-000134-0V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21528 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9lz-00073i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:15 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9ly-00073f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:14 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AE9ly-0000x8-4Z for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:59:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:59:14 +0000 > Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile > situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal > will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected. > No such requirement is made. Only that proposals address the issue. If you have strong objections to anything in the requirements document - it would be best if you made this clear. Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 11:09:28 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 LAA22386 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9vZ-0002ir-Ci for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RG99VL010459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9vZ-0002ic-6A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22330 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9vW-0007IZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9vW-0007IW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9vS-0002d1-7b; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AE9v1-0002aD-J5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:08:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22310 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9uy-0007I1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:08:32 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AE9uy-0007Hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:08:32 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027160829.KLJX527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:08:29 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 11:07:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. > That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. This eliminates all statistical-based filters (Bayesian, Chi-Square, etc.), which are among the most successful spam tools that exist today, as the sender's true identity is of no importance to the filter. These filters are based on the philosophy that all email will continue to be anonymous and therefore pays attention to the one tell-tale characteristic of all spams: their content. So I would recommend if you're going to require that a proposal address the issue of anonymity, you give the author the ability to suggest that it is ignored by the filter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 11:53:31 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 LAA24661 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEAcA-0006VM-ID for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RGrAJG024998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEAcA-0006V7-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24656 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEAc9-0000Hs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEAc8-0000Hp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEAc1-0006Qp-FS; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEAbV-0006PP-50 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24637 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEAbT-0000HA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:27 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEAbT-0000H2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:27 -0500 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 1AEAbm-00016d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:46 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:59:14 GMT." 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, 27 Oct 2003 11:52:46 -0500 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile > > situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal > > will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected. > > > > No such requirement is made. Only that proposals address the issue. Recent discussions on the list leaned towards adding that requirement. > If you have strong objections to anything in the requirements document - it > would be best if you made this clear. My objections were to additional requirements outside of the document, not what was in the document. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 13:38:35 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 NAA29226 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECFr-0000kZ-D6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RIcED5002852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECFq-0000jn-4n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29203 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECFn-0001jp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECFn-0001jm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECFd-0000gL-EA; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECEq-0000RI-Go for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:37:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29151 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:37:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECEo-0001if-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:37:10 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECEn-0001iJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:37:09 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 66E0D1F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:40:20 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:40:20 -0500 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:07:28AM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > > Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. > > That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. > > This eliminates all statistical-based filters (Bayesian, Chi-Square, > etc.), which are among the most successful spam tools that exist today, > as the sender's true identity is of no importance to the filter. That is because they require no infrastructure. Additionally, you need to define 'success'. Configuring your MTA to only accept connections from hosts which are an MX for the domain they HELO as, will also block lots of spam - it may however have a higher false positive rate. > These > filters are based on the philosophy that all email will continue to be > anonymous I disagree. I would say that these filters are based on the issue that there is no current alternative to anonymous mail, so they address the only aspect that they can - content. I don't think it's reasonable to read anything into the philosophy of filter authors about their expectations for the future - they're just trying to solve a problem with the available inputs. > and therefore pays attention to the one tell-tale > characteristic of all spams: their content. So I would recommend if > you're going to require that a proposal address the issue of anonymity, > you give the author the ability to suggest that it is ignored by the > filter. Filters certainly don't affect anonymity, but until a program passes the Turing Test, I won't be convinced that filters can't be fooled. Even then, textual analysis requires far more cpu overhead than an access list check. If the spammers have any hope that their message will get through to you, they have incentive to send more and more spam. If the spammers have NO hope that their message will get through to you, they do not have incentive any more. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Net Musing #5: Redundancy in a network doesn't mean two of everything and half the staff to run it. - Tomas T. Peiser, CET _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 13:47:23 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 NAA29737 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECOO-0002EW-EV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RIl4YL008578 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECOO-0002EH-91 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29723 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECOM-0001vK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECOL-0001vH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECOL-0002Bv-RL; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECNv-00029o-N5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:46:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29690 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECNt-0001uA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:46:33 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECNs-0001u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:46:33 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027184632.MUCY4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:46:32 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 13:45:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That is because they require no infrastructure. Additionally, you need > to define 'success'. Configuring your MTA to only accept connections > from hosts which are an MX for the domain they HELO as, will also block > lots of spam - it may however have a higher false positive rate. But doing this in conjunction with a statistical filter will weaken the statistics, because it won't have as much spam to learn. On the other hand, if you were to do this, and pass the message "as spam" to the filter, this would be acceptable. > I disagree. I would say that these filters are based on the issue that > there is no current alternative to anonymous mail, so they address the > only aspect that they can - content. That's not how most of us feel who are developing these tools; I've discussed this at length with many of the developers on these projects, and whether or not the message can be authenticated is irrelevant to the operation of the filter. Some spammers are now digitally signing their messages to appear authentic (some signatures are obviously bogus)...but should we have an authenticated system of SMTP, that will not affect the filter's basis premise that it is the _content_ of the message that makes it guilty, not the sender. In other words, even if everyone was using an authenticated version of SMTP, it would not suggest that the filter should "trust" the sender/message. > I don't think it's reasonable to read anything into the philosophy of > filter authors about their expectations for the future - they're just > trying to solve a problem with the available inputs. Philosophy is one of the significant factors that we discuss, actually. Philosophy and mathematics. > Filters certainly don't affect anonymity, but until a program passes the > Turing Test, I won't be convinced that filters can't be fooled. No filter is foolproof, but these filters are by far the most accurate filters available today. The sender really is irrelevant...it could be a friend of yours who forwards a message to you they thought was important, but was really spam...it could be a mailing list you are subscribed to with one malicious subscriber, etc. > Even then, textual analysis requires far more cpu overhead than an > access list check. If the spammers have any hope that their message will > get through to you, they have incentive to send more and more spam. If > the spammers have NO hope that their message will get through to you, > they do not have incentive any more. Which is why spammers are using stolen dialup accounts and such to circumvent access lists...just as they will an authenticated method of SMTP to send them...but one thing remains the same: the content. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 13:53:24 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 NAA00109 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECUD-000368-BE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RIr5TK011902 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECUD-00035t-5f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00083 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECUA-00020y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECUA-00020v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECU8-00033J-Ho; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECTU-0002zw-S0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00052 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECTS-00020d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:18 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECTS-00020a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:18 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027185217.NOEK527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:52:17 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067280552.3115.112.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 13:51:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI if this helps, Paul Graham - a member of the spamfilt forum, and one of the people responsible for the annual Spam Conference at MIT - has written several articles outlining the basic theory, philosophy, and design of statistical-based filters. His website is http://www.paulgraham.com. I think you'll find it very useful information, with a lot of data to back up his theory. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:25:30 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 OAA01899 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECzH-0005u2-8H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJPBTJ022684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECzH-0005tn-1b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01838 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECzE-0002Zv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECzE-0002Zs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECz7-0005qu-Gk; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AECz1-0005qP-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01793 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECyz-0002ZC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:53 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AECyy-0002Z7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:52 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 418341F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:13 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:13 -0500 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > > That is because they require no infrastructure. Additionally, you need > > to define 'success'. Configuring your MTA to only accept connections > > from hosts which are an MX for the domain they HELO as, will also block > > lots of spam - it may however have a higher false positive rate. > But doing this in conjunction with a statistical filter will weaken the > statistics, because it won't have as much spam to learn. On the other > hand, if you were to do this, and pass the message "as spam" to the > filter, this would be acceptable. This is diverging from the question of anonymity, and I'd rather stick to the one issue. > > I disagree. I would say that these filters are based on the issue that > > there is no current alternative to anonymous mail, so they address the > > only aspect that they can - content. > That's not how most of us feel who are developing these tools; I've > discussed this at length with many of the developers on these projects, > and whether or not the message can be authenticated is irrelevant to the > operation of the filter. That's a different subject. "Would filters still be useful if mail was authenticated?" - Sure. > Some spammers are now digitally signing their > messages to appear authentic (some signatures are obviously bogus)...but > should we have an authenticated system of SMTP, that will not affect the > filter's basis premise that it is the _content_ of the message that > makes it guilty, not the sender. In other words, even if everyone was > using an authenticated version of SMTP, it would not suggest that the > filter should "trust" the sender/message. Contents which try to look like authenticated mail have nothing to do with authentication of mail. While useful to discuss in a filtering context, either an authentication system is breakable, or it isn't - if it isn't, either a message passes, or it doesn't. > > I don't think it's reasonable to read anything into the philosophy of > > filter authors about their expectations for the future - they're just > > trying to solve a problem with the available inputs. > Philosophy is one of the significant factors that we discuss, actually. > Philosophy and mathematics. You seem to be reading my text as "Filter developers don't have a philosophy", rather than my intended "Don't make guesses about filter developers' philosophy based on the environment they are working within." The later is akin to saying "Anyone who works at a desk philosophically believes that going outdoors is wrong." (i.e. nonesense) In a second response, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > FYI if this helps, Paul Graham - a member of the spamfilt forum, and one > of the people responsible for the annual Spam Conference at MIT - has > written several articles outlining the basic theory, philosophy, and > design of statistical-based filters. His website is > http://www.paulgraham.com. I think you'll find it very useful > information, with a lot of data to back up his theory. I searched Paul's site for 'anonymity' and 'anonymous'. Nothing related to email was found - only one reference to 'anonymous functions', in an article about programming. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Any sufficiently advanced Common Sense will seem like magic... - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:30:24 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 OAA02437 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AED41-0006Tp-Js for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJU5bI024903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AED41-0006Ta-Fk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02353 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AED3y-0002ks-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AED3y-0002kp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AED3z-0006Qw-AJ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AED3n-0006P2-8z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:29:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02320 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AED3k-0002k1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:29:48 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AED3k-0002jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:29:48 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027192947.NPWV4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:29:47 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My point to all of this is that the sender's identity plays no role with statistical-based filters, other than treating the From field as another token in the mix...therefore ignoring the sender's identity in the scheme of anonymity should be an acceptable part of this spec, otherwise you're eliminating the most effective filters available today. > You seem to be reading my text as "Filter developers don't have a > philosophy", rather than my intended "Don't make guesses about filter > developers' philosophy based on the environment they are working > within." You do realize you're telling a filter developer not to make guesses about filter developers, right? =) > I searched Paul's site for 'anonymity' and 'anonymous'. Nothing related > to email was found - only one reference to 'anonymous functions', in an > article about programming. Paul discusses the importance of content and the unimportance of anything else (such as the sender), whitelists, etc. That's kind of my point - anonymity is irrelevant to these filters...which is why they didn't break when sitefinder was turned on briefly, causing all domains to return as "existing" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:42:27 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 OAA03071 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDFg-0007c0-QE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJg87x029254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDFg-0007bl-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03052 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDFd-0002wu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDFd-0002wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDFZ-0007ZC-9j; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDEp-0007W3-4g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:41:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03027 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDEm-0002wU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:41:12 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDEl-0002wR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:41:11 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 29CF21F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:44:32 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:44:32 -0500 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:28:45PM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > My point to all of this is that the sender's identity plays no role with > statistical-based filters, other than treating the From field as another > token in the mix...therefore ignoring the sender's identity in the > scheme of anonymity should be an acceptable part of this spec, otherwise > you're eliminating the most effective filters available today. I don't want to make filters unworkable - but I wish they were unneccessary though. > > You seem to be reading my text as "Filter developers don't have a > > philosophy", rather than my intended "Don't make guesses about filter > > developers' philosophy based on the environment they are working > > within." > > You do realize you're telling a filter developer not to make guesses > about filter developers, right? =) Without the presence of some 'filter developer union' organization, and its statment "We expect email will always be anonymous", any statement by an individual can't be taken as the point of view of the 'industry' as a whole. Many people can do the same thing (write filter systems) and still hold different beliefs and philosophies. > > I searched Paul's site for 'anonymity' and 'anonymous'. Nothing related > > to email was found - only one reference to 'anonymous functions', in an > > article about programming. > > Paul discusses the importance of content and the unimportance of > anything else (such as the sender), whitelists, etc. That's kind of my > point - anonymity is irrelevant to these filters...which is why they > didn't break when sitefinder was turned on briefly, causing all domains > to return as "existing" So, I'd conclude: Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of) That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design tools which are independent of that future. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> The only difference I see between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works! - Leonard Stern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:50:22 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 OAA03536 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDNL-0000Cb-VY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJo34s000771 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDNL-0000CL-Ov for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03513 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDNI-000372-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDNI-00036z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDNI-00009b-KL; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDML-0008WE-Tq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03438 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDMJ-00035O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:59 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDMI-00034v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:58 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-386-911.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.225.127]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNF0042QLMIFD@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:47:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3F9D7638.8040800@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:47:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. >>That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. > > > This eliminates all statistical-based filters (Bayesian, Chi-Square, > etc.), which are among the most successful spam tools that exist today, > as the sender's true identity is of no importance to the filter. These > filters are based on the philosophy that all email will continue to be > anonymous and therefore pays attention to the one tell-tale > characteristic of all spams: their content. So I would recommend if > you're going to require that a proposal address the issue of anonymity, > you give the author the ability to suggest that it is ignored by the > filter. > Nothing is cast in stone - the proposal author will point out whether specific requirements apply to his proposal or not. For example, creative addressing proposal that was discussed a while back has an analysis done by the author based on both the requirements document and the technical considerations document. Whatever did not apply, was indicated so. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:51:24 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 OAA03597 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDOJ-0000RF-Di for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJp3Ag001675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDOJ-0000Qw-9X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03564 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDOG-00037z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDOG-00037w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDOH-0000NL-Tc; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDNf-0000Ej-DB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03526 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDNc-00037M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDNc-00036b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-386-911.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.225.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNF00C2ILP6WP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:48:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <003501c39c9b$dec98ac0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> To: Eric Dean Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F9D7696.9020807@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <003501c39c9b$dec98ac0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 14:48:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Eric Dean wrote: >> Anonymity is unrelated to many of the anti-spam systems. >>As PHB pointed out, holding an ISP accountable for a message >>means that a user of that ISP can still be anonymous. > > > Can an ISP be held accountable for a message and still ensure privacy > and free-speech? On a more technical level, should an ISP inspect every > outgoing message and ensure that it's not spam? Is the anti-spam war > more easily fought at the source than at the sink? > > Rather than just make this rhetorical, there are two types of ISPs: > A) Consumer access: Dial, DSL, Cable, Lease line > B) Content access: Hosting, DS3s... > > Regarding consumer access, most ISPs place port 25 filters on their > access lines. A sender can only send email to a subset of email relays. > This works moderately well. Most spammers have many alternatives for > sending email (see item B) rather than via the ISPs mail server > specified within the port 25 access list. > However, if restricted by alternatives will spammers try to go through the ISP and will that lead to the ISP cutting down on anonymity? > Regarding content access, datacenters essentially do next to nothing to > restrict spammers. In many cases, I receive UBE notices from ISP > providers where the spam originated from their own datacenter. > Considering that datacenters make money on Mbps...they are not concerned > with the excessive traffic generated by spammers. Some datacenters are > essentially spam magnets. In these cases various relay DBs attempt to > find these sources and block them...but the effort is futile. > > I am still amazed that lawsuits go after the companies generating the > spam rather than the datacenters that turn a blind-eye towards them and > provide all the infrastructure to accommodate. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 27 14:52:32 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 OAA03666 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDPS-0000bT-Nv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJqE1a002313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDPS-0000bE-Jc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03639 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDPP-00039W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDPP-00039T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDPI-0000XN-Uw; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDOo-0000Sj-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:34 -0500 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 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDOk-00038g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:30 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDOX-00038X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:17 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027195116.OSLL527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:51:16 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't want to make filters unworkable - but I wish they were > unneccessary though. If you're expecting authentication to obsolete filters, you've got quite a surprise coming =) Like I said before, spammers will only find a way to operate within a "trusted" environment (which as long as it's public, will never truly be trusted). As long as domains are $8.95, this will never happen. > Without the presence of some 'filter developer union' organization, and > its statment "We expect email will always be anonymous", any statement > by an individual can't be taken as the point of view of the 'industry' > as a whole. Many people can do the same thing (write filter systems) and > still hold different beliefs and philosophies. 1. There is a rather large group of filter developers, called the spamfilt group. It is a private list, however, just for developers which is probably why you may not have heard of it. This is how I was able to craft an internet draft with the author of CRM114, along with the input from several other filter developers such as those from Bogofilter and SpamProbe. 2. The _foundation_ of statistical-based filters is that the real pudding is in the content, and not the sender. They are designed by nature to operate with the philosophy that headers are forgeable and all mail is "untrusted"...even if you apply some type of semi-trusted environment for email, these filters will continue to look at all mail as untrusted. > So, I'd conclude: > > Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of) > > That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers > expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design > tools which are independent of that future. Real Paul's explanation of "the emails of the future". It is based around content, not your incorrect belief that an authenticated method of mail exchange will affect spam in any way. It's very easy to sit here and criticize filters for ignoring things that we think are important, but I would rather focus my attention on the individuals who are actually coding these spam filters as they [we] are far more familiar with what works and what doesn't, what will work and what will not, and why the things that you think are important may not actually be...rather than sitting and talking about theory, lets take a look at the people who are actually accomplishing something at fighting spam on the front-lines. In other words, it is the filters that are already succeeding that validate your requirements doc....it's not your requirements doc that validates the spam tools. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:53:19 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 OAA03755 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDQD-0000lH-R5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJr1xo002921 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDQD-0000l2-Lk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03710 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDQA-0003AL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDQA-0003AI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDQC-0000iu-GL; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDQ5-0000iE-6o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03682 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDQ2-0003A2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:50 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDQ1-00039v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:52:49 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027195245.OTEI527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:45 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <3F9D7638.8040800@solidmatrix.com> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9D7638.8040800@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067284302.1875.41.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 14:51:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Nothing is cast in stone - the proposal author will point out whether > specific requirements apply to his proposal or not. That's the general point I was hoping everyone could agree on...if they don't hold anonymity to be relevant to their proposal, then they should be able to have their proposal considered with that statement, rather than be rejected for not being relevant to anonymity =) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 14:56:26 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 OAA03868 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDTE-00017k-Dd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RJu8Xv004314 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDTE-00017V-7y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03862 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDTB-0003Db-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDTB-0003DY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDT8-00013h-VA; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDSC-0000zL-Iv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03834 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDS9-0003Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:55:01 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDS8-0003Cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:55:01 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027195459.OCXY4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:54:59 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Eric Dean , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3F9D7696.9020807@solidmatrix.com> References: <003501c39c9b$dec98ac0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> <3F9D7696.9020807@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067284436.1875.44.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Regarding consumer access, most ISPs place port 25 filters on their > > access lines. A sender can only send email to a subset of email relays. > > This works moderately well. Most spammers have many alternatives for > > sending email (see item B) rather than via the ISPs mail server > > specified within the port 25 access list. > > > > However, if restricted by alternatives will spammers try to go through > the ISP and will that lead to the ISP cutting down on anonymity? Being that a majority of spammers who use ISP accounts are either using stolen accounts, or accounts they purchased with a pre-paid credit card, I submit that even if the ISP cracks down on anonymity and is able to identify the user on their system, the spammer will still be able to maintain complete anonymity as a result of their utilization of the account. So then we're back to square one: we've authenticated a user at an ISP who doesn't really exist in real life =) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:04:27 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 PAA04303 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDaz-0001jw-Tg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RK49UJ006682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDaz-0001jg-Ni for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04218 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDaw-0003KJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDaw-0003KG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDar-0001f6-AG; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDaU-0001dw-T8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:03:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04133 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDaR-0003J9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:03:35 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDaR-0003I4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:03:35 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-386-911.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.225.127]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNF006XYMCX62@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:03:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3F9D79EF.8080308@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:02:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>So, I'd conclude: >> >>Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of) >> >>That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers >>expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design >>tools which are independent of that future. > > > Real Paul's explanation of "the emails of the future". It is based > around content, not your incorrect belief that an authenticated method > of mail exchange will affect spam in any way. > "Email + authentication = no spam" has been a common approach by many. Dave Crocker, Vernon Schryver and many others have pointed out that this particular equation does not compute just like SMTP-AUTH did not kill spam. However, that does not mean that filters is the only way to go. As per the ASRG charter, recasting everything as "consent-based communications" and providing protocols to unify various anti-spam tools including filters may be something that we want to concentrate on instead. > It's very easy to sit here and criticize filters for ignoring things > that we think are important, but I would rather focus my attention on > the individuals who are actually coding these spam filters as they [we] > are far more familiar with what works and what doesn't, what will work > and what will not, and why the things that you think are important may > not actually be...rather than sitting and talking about theory, lets > take a look at the people who are actually accomplishing something at > fighting spam on the front-lines. In other words, it is the filters > that are already succeeding that validate your requirements doc....it's > not your requirements doc that validates the spam tools. > Going off-tangent for a second - is there anything for filter developers that the ASRG or IRTF/IETF can do in terms of perhaps helping to develop a common standard of some sort? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:09:30 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 PAA05116 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDfs-0002jN-LS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RK9Cak010494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDfs-0002jA-1l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05021 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDfp-0003RZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDfo-0003RU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDfi-0002ex-SI; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:09:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDfa-0002V5-Mz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:08:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04956 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDfX-0003Qi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:08:51 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDfW-0003Qe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:08:50 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027200849.OKEZ4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:08:49 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <3F9D79EF.8080308@solidmatrix.com> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9D79EF.8080308@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067285266.1875.55.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 15:07:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Going off-tangent for a second - is there anything for filter developers > that the ASRG or IRTF/IETF can do in terms of perhaps helping to develop > a common standard of some sort? Absolutely, this is kind of where my private email to you was going...so I'll copy part of it to the list. The IRTF would be much more useful to the anti-spam community if rather than trying to define how chickens should lay eggs, if their goal was to observe how chickens did in fact lay eggs, and document a "best practices doc" to help define standards for other chickens that might be having difficulty with their eggs. Translation: There are a lot of very talented individuals in the anti-spam community (many of which are exponentially smarter than I am) who have succeeded in filtering 99.9% of all spam (we're all hovering around three-nines accuracy right now)...and made their research available to the world. If this research and input were compiled into your requirements documentation, then you would be creating a document that defines standards based on actual results instead of theory. This, IMHO, would make a significantly more useful document to benefit the networking community. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:11:20 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 PAA05394 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDhe-00039C-VO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:11:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKB2Xo012092 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDhe-00038Y-QQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05332 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDhb-0003UF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDhb-0003UA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDhc-000353-Vp; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:11:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDgt-00031k-N8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05262 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDgq-0003TZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:12 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDgq-0003Sx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:10:12 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-386-911.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.225.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNF00GV0MKOT4@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9D7B03.2000507@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 8. Evaluation Model - Requirements and Technical Considerations Documents Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 15:07:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT We currently have two documents for proposal evaluation: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/7/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt Are these documents complete? Do we need to add anything else? Should we perhaps mesh the two? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:17:31 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 PAA06296 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDnc-00045W-Fd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKHCDO015708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDnc-00045H-BE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06246 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDna-0003cQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDna-0003cN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDnR-0003zn-Ov; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDnA-0003xq-39 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:16:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06185 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDn8-0003bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:16:42 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDn7-0003bj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:16:41 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 2FC4B1F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:20:02 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:20:01 -0500 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:50:14PM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > If you're expecting authentication to obsolete filters, you've got quite > a surprise coming =) Like I said before, spammers will only find a way > to operate within a "trusted" environment (which as long as it's public, > will never truly be trusted). As long as domains are $8.95, this will > never happen. You're making assumptions about what types of authentication I have in mind. One of your assumptions seems to be about domain-based blacklisting. That's not a method I consider particularly worthwhile (but that's just my opinion). > > Without the presence of some 'filter developer union' organization, and > > its statment "We expect email will always be anonymous", any statement > > by an individual can't be taken as the point of view of the 'industry' > > as a whole. Many people can do the same thing (write filter systems) and > > still hold different beliefs and philosophies. > > 1. There is a rather large group of filter developers, called the > spamfilt group. It is a private list, however, just for developers > which is probably why you may not have heard of it. This is how I was > able to craft an internet draft with the author of CRM114, along with > the input from several other filter developers such as those from > Bogofilter and SpamProbe. The existence of, and your participation in the group, do not turn your opinion into a statement for the group, unless they've made you an official spokesperson. > > So, I'd conclude: > > > > Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of) > > > > That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers > > expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design > > tools which are independent of that future. > > Real Paul's explanation of "the emails of the future". It is based > around content, not your incorrect belief that an authenticated method > of mail exchange will affect spam in any way. When quoting an article, please include the exact title, and a URL. I'd be happy to read it so that we have more common ground to discuss from, but I can't find anything called that on Paul's site. As for my 'incorrect belief', for a trivial example, if I set up a mailbox which discards all mail except for that which is PGP signed by a particular contact of mine, then my consent policy of "Accept mail from Joe", is perfectly implemented. (As long as Joe will sign all his messages, for my convienience.) If the SMTP protocol 'told' connections that this was going to be done, then spammers would learn that sending messages to that mailbox was a waste of time. For another comparison, why do banks control access to funds with a signature, instead of saying 'Is this the type of phone bill that David would actually want to pay?' Content Filters have their place. Access controls have their place. Neither is a subset of the other. Neither can replace all the functionality of the other. Access controls have substantially less overhead, which means that in a well designed system, it should be possible for people to choose to use them first, to save the resources needed for Content Filtering. Additionally, Access controls are a 'hard stop', while Content Filters are a 'soft stop'. Like the virus/anti-virus continual escalation, spammers can write 'smarter' spam to bypass the newest filters. In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get something outside of that consent definition. > It's very easy to sit here and criticize filters for ignoring things I don't recall making any criticism of filters besides a) cpu intensive and b) can't ever be perfect. > In other words, it is the filters > that are already succeeding that validate your requirements doc....it's > not your requirements doc that validates the spam tools. Those filters are doing a good job, given the current (Aug 1982 for RFC822, April 2001 for the cleanup in 2822) SMTP environment, but that doesn't mean that the environment can't be improved. Put another way, if SMTP doesn't start to support (or this group make progress towards upgrading it to support) consent policies based on authenticated transactions, then I suspect large numbers of people will start using something else for messaging. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:28:31 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 PAA07384 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDyF-0005ea-Vk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKSBrk021728 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDyF-0005eN-R4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07277 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDyE-0003te-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDyE-0003tb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDy7-0005WD-52; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEDxd-0005TE-TR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:27:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07193 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDxc-0003sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:27:32 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEDxc-0003qN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:27:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-386-911.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.225.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNF00GGGNF3T4@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:25:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 4d. Consent Framework - Need (was Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)) In-reply-to: <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> To: David Maxwell Cc: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , ASRG Message-id: <3F9D7F4B.2020307@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 15:25:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT David Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:50:14PM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > Content Filters have their place. Access controls have their place. > Neither is a subset of the other. Neither can replace all the > functionality of the other. Access controls have substantially less > overhead, which means that in a well designed system, it should be > possible for people to choose to use them first, to save the resources > needed for Content Filtering. > > Additionally, Access controls are a 'hard stop', while Content Filters > are a 'soft stop'. > > Like the virus/anti-virus continual escalation, spammers can write > 'smarter' spam to bypass the newest filters. > > In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent > definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail > senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get > something outside of that consent definition. > This is leading back towards the consent framework and consent. Our charter calls for consent-based communications where a "super-system" is defined where all various anti-spam tools are tied in together and users can choose the tools they want to use. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:33:36 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 PAA07791 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE3A-0006aU-Cp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKXG4Y025316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE3A-0006aF-8g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07738 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE2w-00041C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE2w-000419-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE2v-0006Vf-D4; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE2j-0006V1-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07732 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE2h-000416-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:47 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE2h-000413-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:47 -0500 Received: from [10.11.114.17] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9RKWiC7026805 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> To: IRTF ASRG From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 04:06:34 +0800 At 1:45 PM -0500 2003/10/27, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > Some spammers are now digitally signing their > messages to appear authentic (some signatures are obviously bogus)...but > should we have an authenticated system of SMTP, that will not affect the > filter's basis premise that it is the _content_ of the message that > makes it guilty, not the sender. In other words, even if everyone was > using an authenticated version of SMTP, it would not suggest that the > filter should "trust" the sender/message. Thank you! It doesn't matter whether they're using open proxies, trojaned machines, stolen accounts, accounts obtained under false pretenses (e.g., with fake credit cards), or any other technique currently known today or not, there is an increasingly large number of spammers who are perfectly willing to use "authenticated" methods to transmit their spam. Even if we forced everyone in the universe to send e-mail using only the authorized outbound mail relays from their provider, using only the authorized domains owned by their provider, we would not stop this onslaught. Moreover, I don't think we'd even slow it down very much. Providers would tend to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing because they don't want to build the kind of mail system infrastructure that could deal with those loads, and they don't have the wherewhithal to build an individual user authentication method that could reliably tell the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of the mail system -- if your machine is trojaned and using your MUA of choice to send out e-mail through your designated outbound mail relays, how is the provider going to tell the difference between that illegitimate use and your real-world outbound messages? Are we going to ask them to filter all the mail through the Chinese gov't or the NSA, so that we can get back an "authoritative" answer as to whether or not this message is okay? If not, how can any one ISP hope to put together the kind of resources it would take to make those kinds of determinations based on client patterns, and which could notice "abnormal" behaviour (i.e., six-sigma differences)? And if they did, why shouldn't we expect spammers to use a "slow start" mechanism that would fly under the radar? And if slow start wasn't enough, what if the patterns would only show themselves when data is collected across all ISPs? Shall we have all e-mail messages and log data transmitted in real-time to the Department of Homeland Security, the Mossad, or maybe Jemaah Islamiyah? The worst part of it is, that as we throw out one piece of the baby with the bathwater at a time, soon enough there won't be any baby left. Even if it's just one blood cell at a time, if you do it enough, the result is that there is nothing left. This is the reverse of the "one bite of the apple" proposal that DMA spokesperson Patricia Faley told CNN, and which is debunked at . This time, we'd be doing it to ourselves, while not stopping (or even significantly slowing) the spammers. I refer you to the quote in my .sig. The people proposing these non-crypto based "authentication" mechanisms are suggesting that we each give up essential e-mail liberties one by one for very little temporary safety that will have no positive impact in the long run. We need totally different kinds of solutions to this problem. For one, if you're going to do authentication, don't bother trying to do anything through the DNS -- That's a thermo-nuclear minefield just waiting to happen as it is. Unless you are Cricket Liu, Paul Vixie, or some other DNS luminary that could write their own book on DNS Security [*], then you are not qualified to judge the risks of this approach. If you're going to do authentication, then do it right -- using a secure protocol with cryptographic techniques at the core. Secondly, if you insist on going down this path despite all warnings to the contrary, don't be silly and insist that this is something that can be done in a binary manner -- that might work in an ideal world, but this has never been an ideal world. Instead, use this information as just one input to a overall scoring system that can take many factors into consideration, and then try to come to a more intelligent decision based on all the available data. [*] If you have already done so, or are in the process, I want to talk to you. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:40:38 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 PAA08562 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE9z-0007rp-30 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKeIp6030235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE9y-0007ra-Pt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08529 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE9x-0004AY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE9w-0004AV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE9i-0007mu-Q0; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEE8n-0007jF-8c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08432 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE8l-00048x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:39:03 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEE8k-00048t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:39:03 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027203901.PQXZ527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:39:01 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 15:37:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The existence of, and your participation in the group, do not turn your > opinion into a statement for the group, unless they've made you an > official spokesperson. As a researcher, it should not be considered good practice to ignore data as you have in this case. Simply denying the usefulness of information because you happen to disagree with it is disturbing, as you appear to be trying to tell the rest of the world what a spam filter should and shouldn't be, when the developers have already figured that out for you. IMHO, if you're going to write up a requirements doc after-the-fact (as you are here), you ought to be playing scribe and project manager, not scientist. > As for my 'incorrect belief', for a trivial example, if I set up a > mailbox which discards all mail except for that which is PGP signed by a > particular contact of mine, then my consent policy of "Accept mail from > Joe", is perfectly implemented. (As long as Joe will sign all his > messages, for my convienience.) This is far from perfect. What if Joe's laptop gets stolen? What if someone intercepts your key exchange and the PGP signature that gets delivered to you is actually from Mallory? What if Joe's machine gets a virus that allows either someone access to it, or someone to get his keys from it? There is no guarantee that Joe is Joe, even with PGP....which is why if you all of a sudden start getting spams from Joe, you'll get the idea that Joe has been compromised...therefore you can never "trust" Joe. > If the SMTP protocol 'told' connections that this was going to be done, > then spammers would learn that sending messages to that mailbox was a > waste of time. On the contrary, spammers would use either one of the above methods to hijack authenticated users, or become an authenticated user themselves - and if you expect any type of authentication to be accepted publicly, it will need to be easy enough to become authenticated so as it doesn't get in the way of turning a profit - meaning spammers will be able to turn a new "identity' every day...regardless of whether it's got to do with domains, downstream users, or what-have-you. > For another comparison, why do banks control access to funds with a > signature, instead of saying 'Is this the type of phone bill that David > would actually want to pay?' And as a result checkbooks still get stolen on a daily basis, and there are enough phony credit card transactions to keep the secret service busy for the next decade. If, however, the bank did look at behavioral patterns (some banks do) then they would be able to contact you when they see a discrepancy. > Content Filters have their place. Access controls have their place. > Neither is a subset of the other. Applying access controls in front of content-filers actually weakens a content-filter, so one might say the only way to make them cohabitate is to get them to talk to each other. > functionality of the other. Access controls have substantially less > overhead, which means that in a well designed system, it should be > possible for people to choose to use them first, to save the resources > needed for Content Filtering. It depends what kind of door you want. If you want a wooden door or a steel door, and how much of a trade-off you're willing to make between resources and accuracy. You have to measure the resources you would use in handling spam abuse reports, retraining, and other functions that occur as a result of receiving one spam...then you have to compare that to the additional resources it would take to perform content-filtering. If content-filtering requires more resources than processing the spams that will get through your front-line access control security, one must conclude that content-filtering is not an appropriate method...however in most cases, I think you'll find that the amount of spam that gets past most front-line access controls is significant enough to warrant a content-based filtering solution. You also need to take into consideration the 'usability' issue with regards to access lists. If you are using a reply-based list (where you have to reply to get added to their access list), there are many individuals (including myself) who _will not_ converse with someone using this approach for many reasons including both resources and philosophy. If you want to catch 100% of spams, disconnect your mail server from the public Internet - but you'll find it's not quite as usable. So there's a balance...I'm not saying access controls are useless...but they certainly are no single solution. > Additionally, Access controls are a 'hard stop', while Content Filters > are a 'soft stop'. However, I'd rather have a soft-stop of 99.9% of spams than a hard-stop of 70% of spams. That's up to the admin though to decide. Several "soft" solutions are designed to feed information to the "hard" solutions to get the benefits of both types of filters. > Like the virus/anti-virus continual escalation, spammers can write > 'smarter' spam to bypass the newest filters. So far, this hasn't been the case. Good statistical-based filters learn these new patterns, and accuracy is only getting better - not worse. This is my argument, however, against access controls - content-based filters learn, whereas access controls do not...they are a standardized environment spammers can learn to function in. A spam getting through the spammer's own test filters is no guarantee that the spam will make it past my filters, but a spam getting through the spammer's test lab using the same access controls as your access-based filter is going to get through any identical filter. > In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent > definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail > senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get > something outside of that consent definition. Statistical-based filters do experience similar behavior, although it's all a wash in the mix. Tokens from the sender such as their return address, mail user agent, signature, etcetera all come into play in a final calculation. Although unintentional, whitelists are a common result of statistical-based filters...even if my argument is that they don't need to be. > a) cpu intensive This is a very relative assumption. How would you define CPU intensive? DSPAM is written entirely in C and actually uses fewer resources than many access-based filters written either in PERL, or poorly-written in C/C++. > and b) can't ever be perfect. Nothing can ever be perfect, though, including access-based filters. Ultimately any requirements doc should be able to support both types of filters...is all my argument ever was....certainly not a flame of access-based filters. > Put another way, if SMTP doesn't start to support (or this group make > progress towards upgrading it to support) consent policies based on > authenticated transactions, then I suspect large numbers of people will > start using something else for messaging. My belief is that a mail server should deliver mail - just as a router routes packets. Leave it to bolt-on solutions to manage consent-policies. Even if you write the best consent policy requirement in the world, it's not going to win over a majority of users because admins want to run what works for them. This doesn't belong in a standard for SMTP, IMO. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 15:51:33 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 PAA09578 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEKX-0000EC-Qd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RKpDLp000868 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEKX-0000Dv-Hj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09553 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEKV-0004Qs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEKV-0004Qp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEKL-00009i-QX; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEJX-00007I-0o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09450 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEJV-0004Q6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:50:09 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEJU-0004Q3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:50:08 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027205008.PWYN527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:50:08 -0600 Subject: Re: 4d. Consent Framework - Need (was Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: David Maxwell , ASRG In-Reply-To: <3F9D7F4B.2020307@solidmatrix.com> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <3F9D7F4B.2020307@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067287745.1875.95.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 15:49:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This is leading back towards the consent framework and consent. Our > charter calls for consent-based communications where a "super-system" is > defined where all various anti-spam tools are tied in together and users > can choose the tools they want to use. That is a worthy cause =) Have we taken into account that many anti-spam tools do not necessarily instantiate at MTA time, but MUA time? Does the scope of this framework cover that, or is it specifically for MTA spam tools? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 16:24:47 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 QAA11977 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEqg-0002ua-4k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RLOQVT011189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEqe-0002uN-GU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11833 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEqc-000516-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEqc-000513-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEqH-0002pL-WF; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEpj-0002n5-CW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:23:28 -0500 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 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEph-0004xM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:23:25 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEpf-0004ws-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:23:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 54737 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Oct 2003 21:23:21 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: John Stanley Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General amusement Message-ID: <20031027212321.GI40656@Space.Net> References: <16117-29592@sneakemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16117-29592@sneakemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 27 Oct 2003 22:23:21 +0100 On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 08:32:18PM -0000, John Stanley wrote: > > About 95% of the spam we receive is from open proxy servers. Take a look > at > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/total-open-proxies.gif > > They had 450000 already back in July. > > So this is not a different discussion, it is /the/ discussion. > > Markus, I have a certain amount of difficulty accepting the accuracy of any graph that indicates more than 0 open proxies existed back in 1900... I understand the sarcasm ;-) The link to the image is on top of the page ( STOP! This page is 88 MB!! ) http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Ejoe/open-proxies-used-to-send-spam.html which also lists a lot of open proxy server. This should have been splitted, IMHO However there is another link to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/jt-proxies/open-proxy-joint-techs.pdf which is about 6 MB. It addresses (starting around page 40) open proxy servers and has a correctly labeled image at page 84 ;-)) \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 Oct 27 16:25:36 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 QAA12079 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEErV-000320-7O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RLPHvr011646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEErV-00031l-2e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12017 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEErT-00053m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEErS-00053j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEErG-0002xM-5E; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEErA-0002wP-9N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11971 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEr7-00052u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:53 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEr6-00052k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:52 -0500 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 1AEErU-0001EE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:16 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:06:34 +0800." 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, 27 Oct 2003 16:25:16 -0500 Brad Knowles wrote: > Are we going to ask them to filter all the mail through the > Chinese gov't or the NSA, so that we can get back an "authoritative" > answer as to whether or not this message is okay? ... Shall we have > all e-mail messages and log data transmitted in real-time to the > Department of Homeland Security, the Mossad, or maybe Jemaah > Islamiyah? Do you have anything positive to offer? The only thing I can determine from your posts is that you are opposed principle to any attempt to modify SMTP. I think we can agree that you think SMTP was handed down from on high in the form of stone tablets, and that we're all going to h*ll for trying to change it. That being said, do you have *anything* positive to say, which will help address the spam problem, and not result in eternal damnation? Is there ANY possibility that an anti-spam proposal will someday satisfy your standards? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 16:34:30 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 QAA13237 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEF06-0003kA-Nj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RLYAmj014382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEF06-0003jt-Jv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13172 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEF04-0005Sm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEF04-0005Sj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEzx-0003gk-Dg; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEEzJ-0003eC-8d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13066 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEzH-0005Pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:19 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEEzG-0005NM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:33:18 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9RLWjSe005548 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:32:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D8F72.6040203@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> In-Reply-To: <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> 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, 27 Oct 2003 13:34:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Maxwell wrote: >On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:50:14PM -0500, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > > >>If you're expecting authentication to obsolete filters, you've got quite >>a surprise coming =) Like I said before, spammers will only find a way >>to operate within a "trusted" environment (which as long as it's public, >>will never truly be trusted). As long as domains are $8.95, this will >>never happen. >> >> > >You're making assumptions about what types of authentication I have in >mind. One of your assumptions seems to be about domain-based >blacklisting. That's not a method I consider particularly worthwhile >(but that's just my opinion). > > > >>>Without the presence of some 'filter developer union' organization, and >>>its statment "We expect email will always be anonymous", any statement >>>by an individual can't be taken as the point of view of the 'industry' >>>as a whole. Many people can do the same thing (write filter systems) and >>>still hold different beliefs and philosophies. >>> >>> >>1. There is a rather large group of filter developers, called the >>spamfilt group. It is a private list, however, just for developers >>which is probably why you may not have heard of it. This is how I was >>able to craft an internet draft with the author of CRM114, along with >>the input from several other filter developers such as those from >>Bogofilter and SpamProbe. >> >> > >The existence of, and your participation in the group, do not turn your >opinion into a statement for the group, unless they've made you an >official spokesperson. > > > >>>So, I'd conclude: >>> >>>Filters -> No dependence on anonymity (presence or lack of) >>> >>>That doesn't seem to support any form of statment about filter writers >>>expectations for the future of email - only about their choice to design >>>tools which are independent of that future. >>> >>> >>Real Paul's explanation of "the emails of the future". It is based >>around content, not your incorrect belief that an authenticated method >>of mail exchange will affect spam in any way. >> >> > >When quoting an article, please include the exact title, and a URL. I'd >be happy to read it so that we have more common ground to discuss from, >but I can't find anything called that on Paul's site. > >As for my 'incorrect belief', for a trivial example, if I set up a >mailbox which discards all mail except for that which is PGP signed by a >particular contact of mine, then my consent policy of "Accept mail from >Joe", is perfectly implemented. (As long as Joe will sign all his >messages, for my convienience.) > >If the SMTP protocol 'told' connections that this was going to be done, >then spammers would learn that sending messages to that mailbox was a >waste of time. > >For another comparison, why do banks control access to funds with a >signature, instead of saying 'Is this the type of phone bill that David >would actually want to pay?' > >Content Filters have their place. Access controls have their place. >Neither is a subset of the other. Neither can replace all the >functionality of the other. Access controls have substantially less >overhead, which means that in a well designed system, it should be >possible for people to choose to use them first, to save the resources >needed for Content Filtering. > >Additionally, Access controls are a 'hard stop', while Content Filters >are a 'soft stop'. > >Like the virus/anti-virus continual escalation, spammers can write >'smarter' spam to bypass the newest filters. > >In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent >definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail >senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get >something outside of that consent definition. > > > >>It's very easy to sit here and criticize filters for ignoring things >> >> > >I don't recall making any criticism of filters besides a) cpu intensive >and b) can't ever be perfect. > > > >>In other words, it is the filters >>that are already succeeding that validate your requirements doc....it's >>not your requirements doc that validates the spam tools. >> >> > >Those filters are doing a good job, given the current (Aug 1982 for >RFC822, April 2001 for the cleanup in 2822) SMTP environment, but that >doesn't mean that the environment can't be improved. > >Put another way, if SMTP doesn't start to support (or this group make >progress towards upgrading it to support) consent policies based on >authenticated transactions, then I suspect large numbers of people will >start using something else for messaging. > > > I don't think authentication will work, unless it's iron clad, like, "This call is coming from a pacific bell account". The hardware is reporting the pretty much undeniable reality of a call. What I think you're going to see is user group web sites, and the demise of regular email, if it doesn't adapt soon. To 'email' someone, you will have to be on a website they are on, be a member, AND have permission to talk to them. Your simple permission or security token will have to be exchanged OUT of bounds from the system. As an example, I don't get any BS or spam from: My ICQ account My AIM account My YIM account via chat methods. Spammers ARE working those protocols, sites, and accounts. I know because, unfortunately, the intial setup of all three of those allows at least a spammer to ASK you if you want to be talked to. I got a LOT of those for porn SPAM until I found the right settings. So, there is: a working example of, a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT EFFICIENT, current, in production, in the real world, permission based system, That blocks SPAM. That these systems work, is irrefutable. The only difference between those three systems and RFC email is that they operate off of central servers, instead of cooperating, distrubuted servers. No content filtering required. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 16:48:37 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 QAA15618 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFDn-0005BR-FS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RLmJof019919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFDn-0005BC-B3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15536 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFDk-00064v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFDk-00064q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFDV-00056W-OH; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFDJ-000562-KT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:47:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15458 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFDH-00063T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:47:47 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFDG-00063L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:47:46 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027214738.QJNY4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:47:38 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Dennis Gearon Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3F9D8F72.6040203@fireserve.net> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <3F9D8F72.6040203@fireserve.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067291196.1875.139.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 16:46:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I know because, unfortunately, the intial setup of all three > of those allows at least a spammer to ASK you if you want to be talked > to. I got a LOT of those for porn SPAM until I found the right settings. > So, there is: > > a working example of, > a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT EFFICIENT, > current, > in production, > in the real world, > permission based system, > > That blocks SPAM. Permission-Based Systems running on top of email have been widely rejected for many years now for several issues including resources and time. There are still a few ISPs that use them, but only a very small percentage...they're troublesome, waste a ton of bandwidth, and waste a lot of time. But the design is perfect, because it requires both an ACK from the sender and an approval from the recipient...I for one would rather receive spams than have to deal with this myself, and I'm a savvy person..think of all the grandma's out there who wouldn't be able to use email because they couldn't figure the system out. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 17:25:12 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 RAA21912 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFn3-0001Gz-Kl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RMOjPs004887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFn3-0001Gk-BJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21743 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFn0-0007lt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFn0-0007lq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFmL-0001AK-9C; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFmA-00019d-3p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:23:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21626 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFm7-0007j1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:23:47 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFm6-0007im-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:23:46 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 5C1341F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:27:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031027222706.GG11605@mail> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> <20031022200726.GE16254@mail> <20031023171814.GM16254@mail> 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:27:06 -0500 > At 1:18 PM -0400 2003/10/23, David Maxwell wrote: > > >> That's fine, but keep in mind that this has collateral damage > >> consequences. > > It's my choice to accept those consequences - it's _my_ consent > > decision. > That's fine -- up until the time where you tell other people that > they should be doing the same thing. No, I'm suggesting that other people should be able to make that choice. You seem to be arguing that recipients shouldn't be allowed to refuse to consent to messages frmo anonymous senders. Also, I never saw an answer to my question - "Are your activists sending to recipients to whom they are known, or are they sending to random recipients?" > If you want to insert lit explosive devices into your body, > that's one thing. But when you start encouraging other people to do > the same, that's totally different. I think that if I were a bit smarter, I would accept that as close enough to a Godwin's law offense that I would cancel this message. > > That's not an abuse of DRIP. DRIP provides a layer upon which I can add > > a white/grey/blacklist by domain. Without DRIP (or RMX, etc), I cannot > > whitelist by domain, since spammers can forge spam claiming to be from > > one of the domains I whitelist. > > They could do that anyway. Remember the previous discussion of > DNS cache poisoning? Even if your servers are immune to cache > poisoning, what are the odds that the advertised nameservers of all > your whitelist domains are also secure? A DNS server being compromisable is an implementation flaw, not an infrastructural one. It's also more difficult than forging an email address is today, thereby raising the bar for spammers. > > Many of the viruses forge email source. If they didn't, I could easily > > contact the sender and tell them to cleanup their machine. > > Just forge the username. Unless you contact the system > administrator at that ISP and get them to match the username against > the IP address at that particular time, you'd never know (that's > assuming they have accurate logs for that time, or that they're > willing to do this for you since you're not a paying customer). Or, > forge the username within any of the other domains which are hosted > by those machines. The later would be difficult for a virus to 'know'. The former would still leave me with a good guess as to whose address book I might be in - and at the very least, lets me contact the ISP who I know can do something about it, with the information they need (source IP and time of connection) so that they can inform the virus-infectee. > Of course, another issue with open caching/recursive servers is > that you can get anyone in the world to effectively host your domain > for you, and combined with wildcards they could appear to be hosts > for virtually all domains on the Internet. I don't understand your example. > > I'm not rejecting the mails in the SMTP phase - so the RFC specs are not > > relevant - however, the fact that I cannot implement > > white/grey/blacklists leaves content inspection as the only method to > > identify spam. That 'guesswork' takes a lot of CPU time, and gives me a > > very non-deterministic answer anyway. > > You're going to be forced to do that anyway. You're just going > to force the spammers to get that bit more crafty to by-pass your > so-called protection mechanisms. Right, it's raising the bar, and it's also enabling other tools. As an example: (All the following is with the exception of point-to-point user verification, such as PGP signed messages.) Without (verified) domain names, you can't have verified email addresses. Without (verified) email addresses, you can't have reliable user based whitelists. I believe that for many users, a short whitelist would be a highly practical solution to the spam problem. It wouldn't be for myself, personally - but for my mother, and my aunts... Any white or black listing proposal which doesn't address the need for authentication of the list compared data may be worked around. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 17:31:37 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 RAA22732 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFtP-0001n3-H5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RMVJmw006877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFtP-0001mq-Ah for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22698 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFtM-0000Ja-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFtM-0000JX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFt7-0001iU-K7; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEFsk-0001gt-Ia for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:30:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22613 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFsg-0000IR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:30:34 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEFsf-0000IJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:30:33 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 1148C1F001; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:33:54 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Markus Stumpf , Asrg Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031027223353.GH11605@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:33:53 -0500 > At 1:20 AM -0400 2003/10/24, David Maxwell wrote: > > > Every decent SMTP MTA adds a 'Received-by:' header, which includes the > > IP of the host that made the SMTP connection. Even open relay MTAs add > > this, so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email. > > How many "decent" MTAs are open relays? Not many. Most "decent" > MTAs these days will refuse to be an open relay unless explicitly > configured that way. > > How many spammers use open relays anymore? Not many. Most use > open proxies now. Ahh. I see the problem now. (I really hate when I have to reverse-infer someone's issue with one of my statements, because it couldn't simply be raised as an issue.) "so you'll still have the IP of the sender of the email." should read: "so you'll still have the IP of the host which made the TCP connection to the MTA." That host is either the spammer's MUA, an open-relay, or an open-proxy. All of which are complicit in the sending of spam, so you do have information you can use to prevent further spam from being delivered to you in the same way. David P.S. And before someone jumps in - please remember that this isn't a general discussion of tracking spam via headers, but specifically of the degree of anonymity available to senders today, against a strongly enabled and determined corrupt authority. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 17:46:36 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 RAA24645 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEG7u-0003DK-K7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RMkIu5012348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEG7u-0003D5-GZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24612 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEG7r-00010S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEG7r-00010P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEG7e-0003AN-E2; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEG7G-00038f-4K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:45:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24528 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEG7C-0000yS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:45:34 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEG7B-0000y4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:45:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 59101 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Oct 2003 22:45:31 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Asrg Message-ID: <20031027224531.GJ40656@Space.Net> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031024085539.GK60567@Space.Net> <20031024181235.GO16254@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031024181235.GO16254@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Source - Open Relays and Proxies (was Re: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 23:45:31 +0100 I have adjusted the Subject. On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:12:35PM -0400, David Maxwell wrote: > In your original message, Message-ID: <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> > you said: > > Which is worthless if it was injected via an open relay. > ---------- > I replied about open relays, and even said (included below) that if you > want to talk about open _proxy servers_ that that is a different > discussion, and that I agree that it's a problem. What you didn't took into account is that spammers even use open proxy servers to feed open relays. We had a customer that had a machine with a wrongly configured Apache proxy. One could clearly see that the attacker first scanned the /24 subnet where the Webserver was in for open SMTP ports. Next the attacker scanned all of our mailservers to check whether the machine was whitelisted for relaying and he found the machine and had time to inject about 1000 messages before our watchdogs notified us and we cut it off. So the two problems are related > Open relays and open proxies are different discussions with regard to > whether a 'useful' IP address will have been included in message > headers. For relays, it will, for proxies, it won't. Even for relayed messages they won't, see above. But I get your point and we could now start a lengthy discussion about slightly different definitions of relay open mailservers. The problem however remains the same: You can trust at maximum one hop further to the source of the spam as the last mailserver under your control. And you definitely cannot travel back to the origin and put full trust into "this is the source" just from the information in the mail header. Never (unless it's your own message of course, but you probably won't see this just from the header either). \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 Oct 27 17:50:43 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 RAA25087 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGBt-0003dW-Nw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RMoPcM013972 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGBt-0003dH-HR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25076 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGBq-0001BH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:22 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGBq-0001BD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEGBq-0003Za-4t for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGBW-0003Ub-BQ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGAd-0003Rn-QG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:49:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24942 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:48:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGAb-000180-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:49:05 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGAa-00017x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:49:04 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AEGAa-0003UZ-JL for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:49:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1067284302.1875.41.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:49:04 +0000 > > That's the general point I was hoping everyone could agree on...if they > don't hold anonymity to be relevant to their proposal, then they should > be able to have their proposal considered with that statement, rather > than be rejected for not being relevant to anonymity =) > Surely. If there's something in our requirements that one doesn't believe apply to a proposal (whatever it is) it's probably best to make this explicit from the start. However, it's got to be a 'legitimate' objection to say that this is wrong and the requirement does / must apply to a proposal and that the proposer should go away and consider it. Also, we can argue about the requirement(s) - rather than for or against some particular proposal. This should save us having to reprise all the arguments for each proposal. In this case, do we believe that anonymity is: (a) a property of the current MTS (b) desirable (c) worth providing for at some cost in anti-spam effectiveness (or accountability) Is there a broad consensus on this? Do we need a consensus on this? Me, I'm not sure about 'a'. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 18:00:50 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 SAA25703 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGLh-0004bz-BJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RN0XLM017721 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGLg-0004bk-OL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25683 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGLd-0001MB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:30 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGLd-0001M7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEGLc-0003i7-RJ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGLC-0004Vt-JV; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:00:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGKO-0004TD-R6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:59:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25573 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:58:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGKL-0001K6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:59:10 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGKL-0001K2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:59:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 59774 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Oct 2003 22:59:07 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Dennis Gearon Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031027225907.GK40656@Space.Net> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <3F9D8F72.6040203@fireserve.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F9D8F72.6040203@fireserve.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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, 27 Oct 2003 23:59:07 +0100 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:34:42PM -0800, Dennis Gearon wrote: > What I think you're going to see is user group web sites, and the demise > of regular email, if it doesn't adapt soon. To 'email' someone, you will > have to be on a website they are on, be a member, AND have permission to > talk to them. Your simple permission or security token will have to be > exchanged OUT of bounds from the system. Imagine you run a business. Would you adopt your info@ account to the above mentioned system? How much new customers do you think you would get compared to another guy in the same business going through the hassle of an "open" info@ account and 300 spam mails a day? \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 Oct 27 18:05:24 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 SAA26052 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGQ6-00051E-Jt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RN56g7019286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGQ6-00050z-9h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25999 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGQ3-0001Qb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGQ3-0001QY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGQ1-0004y7-IF; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGPT-0004ut-02 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:04:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25897 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGPQ-0001Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:04:24 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGPP-0001Pd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:04:23 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AEGPP-0006fW-Qo; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:04:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:04:23 +0000 > >My belief is that a mail server should deliver mail - just as a router >routes packets. Leave it to bolt-on solutions to manage >consent-policies. Even if you write the best consent policy requirement >in the world, it's not going to win over a majority of users because >admins want to run what works for them. This doesn't belong in a >standard for SMTP, IMO. > My MTA enforces tons of policy about what mail it should transport. This seems perfectly sensible - it doesn't promiscuously transport all mail to anywhere. I'd like my users to have their individual policies enforced at our organisational boundary. Why am I wrong? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 18:08:25 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 SAA26425 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGT1-0005YQ-Ks for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RN872k021265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGT0-0005Vf-IX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26361 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGSx-0001TC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGSx-0001T9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGSw-0005SI-9c; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:08:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEGSp-0005QG-3U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:07:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26342 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGSm-0001T1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:07:52 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEGSl-0001Sy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:07:51 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031027230750.SJLR527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:07:50 -0600 Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 27 Oct 2003 18:06:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My MTA enforces tons of policy about what mail it should transport. This > seems perfectly sensible - it doesn't promiscuously transport all mail to > anywhere. I'd like my users to have their individual policies enforced at > our organisational boundary. Why am I wrong? If a true consentual message interface were designed, this interface could be used to enforce all of your current policy...access lists, relays, etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 18:43:34 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 SAA28804 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEH13-0001IS-Id for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RNhHXh004978 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEH13-0001ID-Eu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28786 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEH10-00022v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEH0z-00022s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEH0n-0001D3-7L; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEH0h-0001CK-8K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:42:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28750 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEH0d-00022I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:42:51 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEH0d-00021e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:42:51 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9RNgJSe001965 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:42:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9DAD98.4070301@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090801010509030306040308" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Oct 2003 15:43:20 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090801010509030306040308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Soooooo many of the lists I'm on have the reply-to header munged to the list that I forget to press the 'reply to all' button. --------------090801010509030306040308 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)" Message-ID: <3F9DACCB.4040309@fireserve.net> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:39:55 -0800 From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DAA73.5020006@fireserve.net> <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> In-Reply-To: <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server could >>accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads the file >>and voila, enforcement happens while email client is offline. Of course, >>it needs a nice SIMPLE GUI, etc. >> >> > >XML is pretty bandwidth intensive though, as compared to some smaller >protocol. If this were to become a widely accepted standard, an >architecture might emerge where you could have 100 "dumb" mail servers, >and one or two "policy servers" for lack of a better name. In that >case, you'd want to have the most lightweight protocol for communicating >between them. Maybe XML will work... hmm. > > This XML file only gets transmitted when the user changes his/her policy. It resides for the most part, unchanged on the user's email server, telling the mail server the mail user's wishes by 'proxy'. --------------090801010509030306040308-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 18:57:25 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 SAA29533 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHEP-0002rO-Tm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9RNv5RG010988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHEP-0002qb-Kr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29527 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHEM-0002Iw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHEM-0002It-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHEL-0002nI-IH; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHEI-0002mi-VU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:56:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29518 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHEF-0002Ie-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:56:55 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHEE-0002I6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:56:55 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9RNuPSe003352; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:56:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9DB0E6.40400@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DAA73.5020006@fireserve.net> <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DACCB.4040309@fireserve.net> In-Reply-To: <3F9DACCB.4040309@fireserve.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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, 27 Oct 2003 15:57:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dennis Gearon wrote: > Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > >>> How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server could >>> accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads the >>> file and voila, enforcement happens while email client is offline. >>> Of course, it needs a nice SIMPLE GUI, etc. >>> >> >> >> XML is pretty bandwidth intensive though, as compared to some smaller >> protocol. If this were to become a widely accepted standard, an >> architecture might emerge where you could have 100 "dumb" mail servers, >> and one or two "policy servers" for lack of a better name. In that >> case, you'd want to have the most lightweight protocol for communicating >> between them. Maybe XML will work... hmm. >> >> > This XML file only gets transmitted when the user changes his/her > policy. It resides for the most part, unchanged on the user's email > server, telling the mail server the mail user's wishes by 'proxy'. > This would be a very easy way to combine: white lists gray lists filtering standards DNS based stuff for the filtering standards, something like this could be done: Spam Assassin 4.5.6.7.8.9-super_duper_beta likdra;lekfwe;ofjn likdra;lekfwe;ofjn Upon upload, the mail system can reject it saying, 'don't have such application', or if the application exists, the application can reject the input based on the version number or the missing/wrong/inappropriately mixed criteria, transparently to the MTA. It just returns the string. Or in the cases of point-to-point enforcement: body_embedded_PKI_digitally_signed_testing application joe_smuckatelly@foo.bar joe smuckatelly chicken ranchers have lots of chicken doo doo for sale blah blah iebt0uq2b350[n9u2 b5p9n 2b45p'24 b 'u2b45p9 2v459nqwvtu.onjvrlinvwn blah blah blah _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 19:02:19 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 TAA29678 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHJD-0003Ch-HF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9S023uT012309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHJD-0003CS-Bu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29660 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHJ9-0002NQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHJ9-0002NN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHJB-0003AM-00; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEHJ8-0003AA-IA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29657 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHJ5-0002NI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:55 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEHJ4-0002N3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:54 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9S01MSe003820; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:01:22 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9DB20F.90700@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DAA73.5020006@fireserve.net> <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DACCB.4040309@fireserve.net> <1067298101.1875.187.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> In-Reply-To: <1067298101.1875.187.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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, 27 Oct 2003 16:02:23 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >Same for system policy I assume? > >So you're talking about a standard for writing policy for any MTA is >this correct? > > > > yes, and filter applications have to accept the contents of their sections with possibly tow scenarios: 1/ Can you enforce this? 2/ Is this mail accepted? All ways to prevent reception are based on plugins, each having their own section in the document. The document could even have an 'ordering section' Do filter 1 4X per document, then filter 6 1X, then filter 1 again, then filters 2,5,4 and 3. If still accepted, store for user. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 20:07:36 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 UAA02118 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEIKK-00081l-CV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9S17FZv030843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEIKJ-000815-CO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02074 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEIKH-0003Kj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEIKG-0003Kg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEIK5-0007tC-CJ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEIJR-0007qh-OK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02026 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:06:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEIJP-0003JC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:06:19 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEIJO-0003IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:06:19 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9S14tSe010761; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:04:58 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9DC0F7.1030102@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DAA73.5020006@fireserve.net> <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> In-Reply-To: <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:05:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server could >>accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads the file >>and voila, enforcement happens while email client is offline. Of course, >>it needs a nice SIMPLE GUI, etc. >> >> > >XML is pretty bandwidth intensive though, as compared to some smaller >protocol. If this were to become a widely accepted standard, an >architecture might emerge where you could have 100 "dumb" mail servers, >and one or two "policy servers" for lack of a better name. In that >case, you'd want to have the most lightweight protocol for communicating >between them. Maybe XML will work... hmm. > > It could be a 'dot' file on a unix machine which is the mail server. I don't know what the equivilent is in windows, ( but unfortuately, someday I'm sure I'm going to have to learn it :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Oct 27 22:29:34 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 WAA05667 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEKXk-0000WU-2z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9S3TGbD002004 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEKXj-0000WF-V2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05661 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEKXg-0004pZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEKXg-0004pW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEKXV-0000Tn-3a; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEKX7-0000Sg-DG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:28:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05651 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEKX4-0004p6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:28:34 -0500 Received: from srv01.allenhost.com ([216.127.68.90]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEKX3-0004oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:28:33 -0500 Received: from babastik1 ([0.0.0.0]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by srv01.allenhost.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9S3eft26313 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:40:41 -0600 Message-ID: <01c701c39d03$8388cff0$0a00a8c0@babastik1> From: "Brian Adams" To: "ASRG" References: Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Organization: Babastik MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 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, 27 Oct 2003 19:28:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First, I believe that we need some definitions for Anonymity and = Accountability. I see several uses for the term Anonymity when used in = this discussion. Is it Anonymity as it applies to the real life = identity of the Message Originator? Or perhaps Anonymity as it applies = to the Message Origination? =20 Second, I disagree with the below statement from the requirements = document [2.24.1] because the use of the term "sender" as defined in the = requirements ("A computer system, application or process that is the = origin...") is used when I believe we want to specify the person sending = the email. > 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=20 >address the issues related to preserving anonymity for=20 >[legitimate] uses. Specifically, the term "just cause for preserving sender anonymity". = Shouldn't that be "just cause for preserving message originator = anonymity"? =20 Rational: At the end of the day what we want is to be able to provide a means for = 'people' to send email while hiding their identity, right? And as long = as ISPs can provide email addresses without verifying the identity of = the person provided the address then the need of message originator = anonymity has been fulfilled. Thus any proposal that does not force = ISPs to verify the message originator satisfies requirement 2.14. This = includes my personal favorite the RMX type solutions. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 00:13:57 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 AAA11127 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEMAk-0000LC-FI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9S5Dcpj001307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEMAk-0000L0-9H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11077 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEMAh-0006vg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEMAh-0006vc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEMA8-0000F5-PN; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEM9a-0000Am-Ss for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:12:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10950 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEM9Y-0006sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:12:24 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEM9X-0006rr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:12:23 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9S5BqSe029681; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:11:53 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9DFAD6.40604@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) References: <1067296008.1875.174.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <3F9DAA73.5020006@fireserve.net> <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> In-Reply-To: <1067297481.1875.185.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:12:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server could >>accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads the file >>and voila, enforcement happens while email client is offline. Of course, >>it needs a nice SIMPLE GUI, etc. >> >> > >XML is pretty bandwidth intensive though, as compared to some smaller >protocol. If this were to become a widely accepted standard, an >architecture might emerge where you could have 100 "dumb" mail servers, >and one or two "policy servers" for lack of a better name. In that >case, you'd want to have the most lightweight protocol for communicating >between them. Maybe XML will work... hmm. > > > Another way to save on the need to read this file for every mail is to have the relevant applications cache this either in memory, or in a filetype of their choosing and under their control. The command set to each application or the API would have a commmand for 'reload' and give the file location. It would take out what is relevant to it and ingnore the rest. I think a GET/POST/argv/argc/command line argument approach would work to supply file name. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 06:50:50 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 GAA17079 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AESMq-0007zO-UM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SBoWws030706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AESMq-0007zB-QA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17074 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AESMm-0001WD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AESMZ-0001W7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AESMN-0007t2-8v; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AESM7-0007qu-Ds for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:49:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17064 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AESM3-0001Vr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:49:43 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AESM2-0001Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:49:42 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AESM4-0005Lb-DJ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:49:44 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: jonathan@nuclearelephant.com, gearond@fireserve.net X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 4.d. Consent framework (was Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Oct 2003 11:49:44 +0000 Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: >>How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server could >>accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads You should really check out the list archives. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 08:12:42 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 IAA19133 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AETe2-0000dU-KT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SDCMSv002440 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AETe2-0000dH-CH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19115 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AETe1-0002T7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AETe1-0002T4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AETdh-0000WW-27; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AETd4-0000S0-UK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19069 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AETd3-0002Ry-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:11:21 -0500 Received: from mta01.alltel.net ([166.102.165.143] helo=mta01-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AETd3-0002Rv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:11:21 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta01-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031028131118.BFBL4162.mta01-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:11:18 -0600 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4.d. Consent framework (was Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG , gearond@fireserve.net In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067346615.3156.0.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 28 Oct 2003 08:10:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This wasn't my suggestion On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 06:49, Jon Kyme wrote: > Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > > >>How about an XML standard that defined ways that a mail server > could > >>accept/bounce/drop down a canyon/etc emails? The users uploads > > You should really check out the list archives. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 08:53:31 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 IAA20241 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEUHX-00067p-M9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SDrBu4023539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEUHX-00067a-HE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20219 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEUHW-0002z9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEUHV-0002z6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEUHN-00064u-Ok; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEUGm-00060w-GI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:52:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20196 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEUGk-0002ya-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:52:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEUGk-0002yM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:52:22 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-290.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.172.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNG00257ZUBSV@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:51:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9E746F.1090701@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:51:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The consent framework has been discussed before, the current draft can be found at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html The ASRG charter also focuses on consent: http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Someone has started work on an XML format: http://www.sortmonster.com/ASRG/ I am currently working on a new draft (long overdue). If you check back the archives, you will find lots of discussions around the consent framework, its protocols and formats. I am hoping that a new draft will facilitate further discussions. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 10:50:04 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 KAA01875 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEW6L-0005rZ-Q1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SFnjO7022536 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEW6L-0005rP-Km for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01803 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEW6J-0006Sj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEW6I-0006Sf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:49:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEW4f-0005f7-0K; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEW3i-0005ao-8o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01573 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEW3f-0006NE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:46:59 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEW3e-0006KG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:46:59 -0500 Received: from somewhere.comcast.net (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <200310281546130120067huse> (Authid: s.schear); Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:46:13 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028074025.04bb7310@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: camram-spam@camram.org, asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear In-Reply-To: <3F7B38A0.1000401@harvee.org> References: <20031001164150.B2EC316FC8@jmason.org> <20031001164150.B2EC316FC8@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Big Companies Add 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: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:43:21 -0800 October 28, 2003 Big Companies Add to Spam By SAUL HANSELL ver wonder how a certain company sending unsolicited e-mail messages got your address? Michael Rathbun, the director of policy enforcement at Allegiance Telecom, an Internet service provider in Dallas, says he thinks he has much of the answer. Some five years ago, Mr. Rathbun bought a Palm hand-held organizer and, in registering it on Palm's Web site, gave the company an e-mail address he never used for anything else. Initially his in-box received only offers for products related to the organizer, but eventually he started getting advertising from some well-known companies like Bank of America, SBC Communications and Sprint. Lately, that one address alone has been receiving dozens of e-mails a month offering everything from travel clubs to acne remedies. "This is not stuff," Mr. Rathbun said, "that I should be getting from them." The problem of spam or unwanted commercial e-mail is usually attributed to outlaws and hucksters peddlers of pornography, get-rich-quick schemes and pills of dubious merit who use hackers to send their fraudulent messages in ways that cannot be traced. But the torrent of spam that is flowing into people's electronic mailboxes comes not only from the sewers but also from the office towers of the biggest and most well-known corporations. Established companies insist they send e-mail only to people who have voluntarily agreed to receive marketing offers. A spokeswoman for Palm says it does not know how Mr. Rathbun's e-mail address got into the hands of spammers and says it has never sold its customer list. But often companies rent e-mail lists from a cottage industry that has emerged to lure Internet users, through a variety of schemes, into signing up for e-mail marketing. At best, if you have ever entered a contest to win a prize, subscribed to an online newsletter or simply purchased a product on the Web, you may well have also agreed, as many such fine-print contracts put it, "to receive valuable offers from our marketing partners." This practice falls under the rubric of what is called opt-in marketing, or getting permission to send advertising messages. But many e-mail executives admit that these same list companies also add to their databases by buying, trading sometimes even stealing names. "Everyone is looking for a quick buck now, and people are claiming to sell opt-in data who don't have it," said Pesach Lattin, who runs Adspyre, a New York e-mail marketing firm. Moreover, some companies have allowed the e-mail addresses of their own customers, either deliberately or inadvertently, to fall into the hands of list peddlers who in turn sell them to e-mail marketers of all stripes. Sometimes, the lists are stolen from corporate owners by employees or vendors looking to make a quick profit. But in many cases, the big companies are deliberately buying and selling access to names, relying on privacy policies often hard to find on their sites that they say permit such actions. "White-collar spam" is how Nick Usborne, a newsletter writer and Internet marketing consultant, refers to this phenomenon. "When a responsible company," Mr. Usborne said, "gets someone to sign up for a newsletter and says, now that we have their e-mail address let's make more money off it and send them e-mail they didn't ask for, that's white-collar spam." The antispam bill passed unanimously by the Senate last week imposes tough penalties on people involved in the lowest forms of spam but it does not deal with the central questions Mr. Usborne and others raise about white-collar spam. It does nothing, for example, to establish rules defining an appropriate list of names that a purveyor of a legitimate product can use to send an offer by e-mail. Nor does it regulate the transfer of names between companies. The law would require that every e-mail message offer recipients a method to remove themselves from an advertiser's mailing list. But with the way that names are traded today, this method would do little to reduce the amount of e-mail people receive, industry executives say. "People don't realize that once you sign up for a contest or free stuff on the Web and you forget to uncheck a box, these people will pass your name to a hundred other people,'` said Paul Nute, a partner of Soho Digital, a New York advertising agency that represents e-mail marketers. "You've just raised your hand and said, `Send me the diet pill offers.' And there is no way to get them all to stop." A new state law scheduled to take effect in California on Jan. 1 tries to take a stricter approach: it requires that commercial e-mail to or from anyone in the state be sent only to people who specifically request information from the advertiser. Many in the e-mail industry read the law as curbing many of the more common ways that names are gathered and used, but the exact limits will be left up to the courts to define. Moreover, if the federal bill passed by the Senate is enacted it would void most state spam laws, including California's. Although the Senate bill also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create a do-not-spam list modeled after the wildly popular do-not-call list that is already starting to curb unwanted telemarketing calls, F.T.C. officials said that, unlike telemarketing, it would be extremely difficult to determine the difference between solicited and unsolicited e-mail. That is in part because so many companies go beyond their own customers to rely on opt-in list collectors. Not surprisingly, companies that are active users of conventional mail solicitations have gravitated to e-mail, which can be far cheaper, to push certain products. These include Morgan Stanley's Discover Card, Altria's Gevalia Coffee, Schering-Plough's Claritin, and The New York Times, which uses opt-in e-mail lists to sell subscriptions. One such list maker is Xuppa.com, a 38-person firm working from a cramped office in Midtown Manhattan across Seventh Avenue from Macy's department store. It has gathered half a billion e-mail addresses since it started four years ago, but most of those are no longer valid. The 65 million names left on its lists, Lance Laifer, Xuppa's chief executive, says, have given permission to receive marketing messages. Visitors to Xuppa.com are encouraged to enter its $1 million sweepstakes. To do so they must enter not only their e-mail address but postal address and telephone number as well. Entering the contest gives Xuppa permission to market to users. On the same Web page, some 75 other offers from advertisers are displayed, each adjacent to a check box some already checked by default. When Xuppa users enter the contest, their personal information is passed to any advertiser whose offer is checked. "There are a lot of people who would rather register and give their e-mail addresses than pay for services," Mr. Laifer said. This process of putting many offers on one page where users enter information is called co-registration, and it has become one of the main ways that names are gathered online. Some such sites make it hard for users to see all the lists they are joining. AmericanGiveAways.com, a site run by Synergy6, allows users to register to earn free gifts. "By signing up with us," a notice at the bottom of the page reads, "you are also agreeing to receive great offers, special coupons and promotions from our partner sites." Dozens of partners are listed on separate links, yet once a single button is clicked each of the advertisers can claim with some degree of truth that the user agreed to receive marketing messages. Such sites stretch users' consent beyond any recognition, argues Seth Godin, a former Yahoo executive, who coined the term "permission marketing" to define the practice of sending e-mail marketing to people who ask for it. "The people who are talking about permission marketing are almost entirely doing it wrong," Mr. Godin said. "Greed and avarice drove people to wreck the system." The trade in e-mail names is not limited to the back alleys of the Internet. Big traditional mailing list companies like Equifax and Experian have been buying e-mail addresses, often from these contest sites, and linking them with their vast stores of other information about people. They use this so marketers can send e-mail to people with, say, a certain disease, or who own a specific car, and so on. The chain of permission can be stretched even further. Some names come from customer lists of Internet companies that collapsed as the dot-com bubble burst. For example, MatchLogic, a Colorado marketing company that gathered 13 million names was acquired by Excite@Home, a high-speed Internet service controlled by AT&T. MatchLogic had a clear privacy policy that said it would not transfer those names to any third party without permission. But when Excite@Home was liquidated in bankruptcy in 2001, its mailing list was purchased by a group of marketing firms led by RHC Direct of Salt Lake City. Some of those companies in turn sold the list to others. Robert Caldwell, RHC's president, says he believes it is also being traded by former MatchLogic employees. "Names get flipped and flipped and flipped until everyone's name is everywhere," Mr. Caldwell said. Nothing is wrong with that, he contended, because the people who originally provided their e-mail addresses agreed to receive marketing messages. "As much as people talk about privacy," he said, "they will give it up for the chance to win a Lexus." Mr. Rathbun, who also has an e-mail address exclusively used to enter a MatchLogic contest, says it has received thousands of pieces of spam, some from big companies. Bankruptcy courts have generally allowed the sale of lists from failed companies like MatchLogic. But those transfers were against Excite@Home's stated privacy policy, said Christopher Kelly, Excite@Home's former chief privacy officer, now a lawyer with Baker & McKenzie. He said he would advise any client not to send e-mail to that list "as there is insufficient proof of the permission of the information." Officials at many of the big companies marketing by e-mail admit that the list companies are not always honest about the sources of their names. But they say there is no way to test the quality of a list other than to send e-mail to its addresses and find out how many complaints result. "There are some irresponsible companies that are bringing a bad name to those of us trying to be responsible,'` said Rajive Johri, executive vice president for marketing for J. P. Morgan Chase's credit card unit, an active user of opt-in e-mail. "We do a lot of due diligence on the vendors we utilize," Mr. Johri said. "At the same time, can I feel 100 percent sure that there are no abuses? No." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/technology/28SPAM.html?hp _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 11:27:51 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 LAA05447 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEWgs-000113-Tg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SGRUUo003899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEWgs-00010n-Ji for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05337 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEWgr-00002D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEWgr-00002A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEWgP-0000vm-Qh; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEWgG-0000v2-8y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:26:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05222 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEWgF-0007nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:26:51 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEWgE-0007l7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:26:50 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9SGPcSe029556; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:25:38 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9E98D3.1000008@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Schear CC: camram-spam@camram.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Big Companies Add to Spam References: <20031001164150.B2EC316FC8@jmason.org> <20031001164150.B2EC316FC8@jmason.org> <5.2.1.1.0.20031028074025.04bb7310@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028074025.04bb7310@mail.comcast.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: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:26:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Schear wrote: > Moreover, some companies have allowed the e-mail addresses of their > own customers, either deliberately or inadvertently, to fall into the > hands of list peddlers who in turn sell them to e-mail marketers of > all stripes. Sometimes, the lists are stolen from corporate owners by > employees or vendors looking to make a quick profit. But in many > cases, the big companies are deliberately buying and selling access to > names, relying on privacy policies often hard to find on their > sites that they say permit such actions. > > "White-collar spam" is how Nick Usborne, a newsletter writer and > Internet marketing consultant, refers to this phenomenon. > > "When a responsible company," Mr. Usborne said, "gets someone to sign > up for a newsletter and says, now that we have their e-mail address > let's make more money off it and send them e-mail they didn't ask for, > that's white-collar spam." > A conset framework with a separate 'lock' for each person given the email address, would stop that. Just turn off that lock. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 12:19:46 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 MAA09824 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXV6-00075z-4S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SHJNxL027269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXV5-00075k-SC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09772 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXV4-0001ol-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXV4-0001oi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXUk-00070O-0A; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXUI-0006yG-8u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:18:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09722 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXUG-0001nd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:18:32 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXUF-0001nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:18:31 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 076721F001; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:21:47 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Eric Dean , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031028172146.GL11605@mail> References: <003501c39c9b$dec98ac0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> <3F9D7696.9020807@solidmatrix.com> <1067284436.1875.44.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067284436.1875.44.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:21:46 -0500 Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > > Eric Dean wrote: > > > Regarding consumer access, most ISPs place port 25 filters on their > > > access lines. A sender can only send email to a subset of email relays. > > > This works moderately well. Most spammers have many alternatives for > > > sending email (see item B) rather than via the ISPs mail server > > > specified within the port 25 access list. (I'd disagree with the statement that 'most ISPs' filter port 25, but whatever ;-) > > However, if restricted by alternatives will spammers try to go through > > the ISP and will that lead to the ISP cutting down on anonymity? > > Being that a majority of spammers who use ISP accounts are either using > stolen accounts, or accounts they purchased with a pre-paid credit card, > I submit that even if the ISP cracks down on anonymity and is able to > identify the user on their system, the spammer will still be able to > maintain complete anonymity as a result of their utilization of the > account. > > So then we're back to square one: we've authenticated a user at an ISP > who doesn't really exist in real life =) The issue here is that accountability facilitates a web of trust (or web of distrust) - if that ISP is known to give out anonymous accounts, then a recipient can choose that their 'view of the internet' shouldn't include receiving mail from users at an ISP with that policy. This is quite comparable to the phone company offering you the option of blocking calls from people whose caller-id information is not available. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 12:36:27 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 MAA11152 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXlG-0008Q3-QW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SHa6VX032357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXlG-0008Po-LG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11124 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXlF-0002HB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXlE-0002H8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXlB-0008NO-Ub; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXkk-0008LL-00 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11094 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXkW-0002GU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:20 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXkV-0002GJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:19 -0500 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 1AEXl0-0001cQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:50 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:53:56 EST." <1067284436.1875.44.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.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, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:50 -0500 "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" wrote: > Being that a majority of spammers who use ISP accounts are either using > stolen accounts, or accounts they purchased with a pre-paid credit card, > I submit that even if the ISP cracks down on anonymity and is able to > identify the user on their system, the spammer will still be able to > maintain complete anonymity as a result of their utilization of the > account. That's fine. > So then we're back to square one: we've authenticated a user at an ISP > who doesn't really exist in real life =) I don't think so. None of the RMX-style solutions authenticate users. To do so would be nonsensical. That's why SMTP AUTH doesn't do anything about spam. I'm not going to authenticate your users, so it doesn't prevent spam from reaching me. You've already authenticated the spammers & agreed to spamming, so it doesn't prevent spam from leaving your site. RMX & friends make ISP's *accountable* for the messages they send. The importance of accountability versus authentication has been stressed numerous times on this list. With open proxies & relays, neither ISP's nor users are held accountable for messages, because ISP with the open proxy doesn't care, and the spam isn't traceable past the open proxy. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 12:39:26 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 MAA11250 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXo8-0000f3-NR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SHd4pL002535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXo8-0000eo-Dw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11232 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXo6-0002KD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXo6-0002KA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXo6-0000b4-J3; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:39:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXo1-0000af-46 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11229 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXnz-0002K4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:55 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXny-0002K1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:38:54 -0500 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9SHdTZ03766; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:39:30 GMT Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 31FD616F0E; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193D3F8A1; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:38:46 -0800 (PST) To: Dennis Gearon Cc: Steve Schear , camram-spam@camram.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Big Companies Add to Spam In-Reply-To: <3F9E98D3.1000008@fireserve.net> 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: <20031028173846.31FD616F0E@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: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:38:41 -0800 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dennis Gearon writes: >Steve Schear wrote: > >> Moreover, some companies have allowed the e-mail addresses of their >> own customers, either deliberately or inadvertently, to fall into the >> hands of list peddlers who in turn sell them to e-mail marketers of >> all stripes. Sometimes, the lists are stolen from corporate owners by >> employees or vendors looking to make a quick profit. But in many >> cases, the big companies are deliberately buying and selling access to >> names, relying on privacy policies often hard to find on their >> sites that they say permit such actions. >> >> "White-collar spam" is how Nick Usborne, a newsletter writer and >> Internet marketing consultant, refers to this phenomenon. >> >> "When a responsible company," Mr. Usborne said, "gets someone to sign >> up for a newsletter and says, now that we have their e-mail address >> let's make more money off it and send them e-mail they didn't ask for, >> that's white-collar spam." >> >A conset framework with a separate 'lock' for each person given the >email address, would stop that. Just turn off that lock. And in legal terms, European-style data privacy laws would also restrict the resale of address information. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQE/nqmgQTcbUG5Y7woRAgNbAKDHIN2mfhC93WO5FgfYdwM53XHCQACeNNCO N3hDsolYd29M8Nwfh/tNkYE= =UsAB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 12:50:36 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 MAA12327 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXyx-000218-WF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SHoFnK007748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXyx-00020t-Re for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12279 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXyw-0002iT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXyv-0002iQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXyk-0001vB-SP; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEXyI-0001r0-I7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:49:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12233 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXyG-0002gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:49:32 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEXyF-0002gu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:49:31 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 499D01F001; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:52:52 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:52:52 -0500 Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote: > David Maxwell wrote: > > The existence of, and your participation in the group, do not turn your > > opinion into a statement for the group, unless they've made you an > > official spokesperson. > > As a researcher, it should not be considered good practice to ignore > data as you have in this case. Simply denying the usefulness of > information because you happen to disagree with it is disturbing, as you > appear to be trying to tell the rest of the world what a spam filter > should and shouldn't be, when the developers have already figured that > out for you. IMHO, if you're going to write up a requirements doc > after-the-fact (as you are here), you ought to be playing scribe and > project manager, not scientist. I don't want to ignore the applicability of filters, but you jumped into the middle of a thread about activists and anonymity and your posts seemed to be trying to shanghai the thread. Discussing filters is useful - disrupting a discussion about accountability with 'but filters are better, because they don't care!' is simply... disruptive. > > As for my 'incorrect belief', for a trivial example, if I set up a > > mailbox which discards all mail except for that which is PGP signed by a > > particular contact of mine, then my consent policy of "Accept mail from > > Joe", is perfectly implemented. (As long as Joe will sign all his > > messages, for my convienience.) > > This is far from perfect. What if Joe's laptop gets stolen? What if > someone intercepts your key exchange and the PGP signature that gets > delivered to you is actually from Mallory? What if Joe's machine gets a > virus that allows either someone access to it, or someone to get his > keys from it? There is no guarantee that Joe is Joe, even with > PGP....which is why if you all of a sudden start getting spams from Joe, > you'll get the idea that Joe has been compromised...therefore you can > never "trust" Joe. Events such as 'Joe's laptop gets stolen' are likely to be quite rare. As such, the risk of receiving spam due to this situation is so low that it doesn't present much of an argument to convince me that I should spend CPU resources doing content based filtering on every mail I receive (if there are other options for eliminating some quantity of spam). Additionally, you highlight the fact that ISPs need tools to provide better control over users use of resources. If Joe normally sends less than 20 emails a day, and a spammer takes over his identity, shouldn't 200+ emails in one day be enough to shut him down? No, you can never 'trust' anyone, and you can never filter perfectly, but if each 'identity theft' could only result in a handful of spam reaching the network, versus the millions delivered today, then the change would be significantly beneficial to the network as a whole. > > If the SMTP protocol 'told' connections that this was going to be done, > > then spammers would learn that sending messages to that mailbox was a > > waste of time. > > On the contrary, spammers would use either one of the above methods to > hijack authenticated users, or become an authenticated user themselves - > and if you expect any type of authentication to be accepted publicly, it > will need to be easy enough to become authenticated so as it doesn't get > in the way of turning a profit - meaning spammers will be able to turn a > new "identity' every day...regardless of whether it's got to do with > domains, downstream users, or what-have-you. There are many options here - greylisting would seem applicable, either on the behalf of the domain-issuing entity or the mail recipient. Weigh the cost-benefit analysis, do quickly issues domains benefit spammers exponentially more than regular users? do quickly delivered mail messages from new communication peers benefit spammers exponentially more than regular peers? > > For another comparison, why do banks control access to funds with a > > signature, instead of saying 'Is this the type of phone bill that David > > would actually want to pay?' > > And as a result checkbooks still get stolen on a daily basis, and there > are enough phony credit card transactions to keep the secret service > busy for the next decade. > > If, however, the bank did look at behavioral patterns (some banks do) > then they would be able to contact you when they see a discrepancy. This isn't comparable to spam. The forged transactions are a tiny percentage of the valid transactions. Spam on the otherhand, exceeds 50% of received mail for many users, and 95%+ for infrequent email users. > > Content Filters have their place. Access controls have their place. > > Neither is a subset of the other. > > Applying access controls in front of content-filers actually weakens a > content-filter, so one might say the only way to make them cohabitate is > to get them to talk to each other. This leaves the question of whether you want to have internet bandwidth soaked up by spam, just so you can have more ham input for your filter learning system? [...] > philosophy. If you want to catch 100% of spams, disconnect your mail > server from the public Internet - but you'll find it's not quite as > usable. > > So there's a balance...I'm not saying access controls are useless...but > they certainly are no single solution. I've been tempted to set up an IPv6-only MTA, and see how much spam it gets when 'disconnected from the public Internet' ;-) > Statistical-based filters do experience similar behavior, although it's > > a) cpu intensive > > This is a very relative assumption. How would you define CPU > intensive? DSPAM is written entirely in C and actually uses fewer > resources than many access-based filters written either in PERL, or > poorly-written in C/C++. Heh. You don't know where I work. We make a hardware product that does content analysis at OC48 speeds, with guaranteed throughput. Content inspection is a processing intensive operation, compared to a binary search for a token in an access list, no matter what the implementation language (or hardware) for the filter is. > My belief is that a mail server should deliver mail - just as a router > routes packets. Leave it to bolt-on solutions to manage > consent-policies. Even if you write the best consent policy requirement > in the world, it's not going to win over a majority of users because > admins want to run what works for them. This doesn't belong in a > standard for SMTP, IMO. In contrast, people build firewalls built into routers, not as seperate devices. Additionally, there are some things you can do by being inline in the process, that you can't do as an adjunct afterwards. David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 13:15:44 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 NAA14169 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYNJ-00056i-Oz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SIFPLB019626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYNJ-00056T-KE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14160 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYNH-0003Sc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYNH-0003SZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYLx-0004x5-QZ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYLE-0004tV-VF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:13:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14049 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYLC-0003Oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:13:15 -0500 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYLB-0003N8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:13:14 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (mail.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9SID5AM088273 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:13:05 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.12.74]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003102816183552:7952 ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:18:35 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031028160730.01c82a28@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/28/2003 04:18:35 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/28/2003 04:18:37 PM, Serialize complete at 10/28/2003 04:18:37 PM 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, 28 Oct 2003 16:10:53 -0200 At 28/10/2003 15:52 Tuesday, David wrote: >Events such as 'Joe's laptop gets stolen' are likely to be quite rare. >As such, the risk of receiving spam due to this situation is so low that >it doesn't present much of an argument to convince me that I should >spend CPU resources doing content based filtering on every mail I >receive (if there are other options for eliminating some quantity of >spam). May I direct you to http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/25715.html ?? Pay special attention to the small paragraph which reads: "According to CCC's data, up to 60 per cent of laptop claims received are for accidental damange. The rest are for theft. From this it extrapolates - on the assumption that there are five million laptops in circulation in the UK (a bit high, maybe?) that 100,000 are damaged and c.67,000 are stolen every year. Most thefts apparently occur in offices and schools (12 per cent each)." I would not call approx. 67.000 stolen laptops by year only in the UK a "quite rare" event. May you receive just one spam mail from each of these notebooks :) Cheers Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 13:40:29 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 NAA15616 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYlC-00080t-40 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SIe5ri030780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYlB-00080J-16 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15587 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYl8-00045R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYl8-00045O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:40:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYjF-0007WW-U3; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:38:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYj4-0007OA-EI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:37:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15446 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYj2-00042A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:37:52 -0500 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 1AEYj1-000425-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:37:51 -0500 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:44:45 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Andreas Saurwein" , Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031028160730.01c82a28@mail.uniwares.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2003 18:44:45.0766 (UTC) FILETIME=[8EBEEE60:01C39D83] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Oct 2003 18:37:46 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Events such as 'Joe's laptop gets stolen' are likely to be quite rare. > >As such, the risk of receiving spam due to this situation is so low that > >it doesn't present much of an argument to convince me that I should > >spend CPU resources doing content based filtering on every mail I > >receive (if there are other options for eliminating some quantity of > >spam). > > May I direct you to http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/25715.html ?? > Pay special attention to the small paragraph which reads: > > "According to CCC's data, up to 60 per cent of laptop claims received are > for accidental damange. The rest are for theft. From this it extrapolates - > on the assumption that there are five million laptops in circulation in the > UK (a bit high, maybe?) that 100,000 are damaged and c.67,000 are stolen > every year. Most thefts apparently occur in offices and schools (12 per > cent each)." > > I would not call approx. 67.000 stolen laptops by year only in the UK a > "quite rare" event. > May you receive just one spam mail from each of these notebooks :) But it doesn't really matter, because any sane anti-spam system using email source authentication will not try to do sender authentication at the receiver. The sending MUA authentication needs to be done by the sending MTA, the receiver then verifies that the sending MTA is allowed to transmit mail from that address. It will make some types of roaming a bit harder. But, unlike smtp-auth and other such end-to-end authentication systems, it will be usable for assigning responsibility for spam. Tom _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 13:52:25 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 NAA16412 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYwm-00018C-Up for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SIq4fS004342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYwm-00017x-QZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16385 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYwk-0004MF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYwk-0004M9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYwj-00010s-Ay; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEYvt-0000rS-QD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:51:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16311 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYvr-0004Kc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEYvq-0004Jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-290.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.172.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNH00ECPDLLGT@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:49:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 2a. Analysis - Sources (was Re: [Asrg] Big Companies Add to Spam) In-reply-to: <20031028173846.31FD616F0E@jmason.org> To: Justin Mason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F9EBA17.6080302@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <20031028173846.31FD616F0E@jmason.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:48:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Justin Mason wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Dennis Gearon writes: > >>Steve Schear wrote: >> >> >>>Moreover, some companies have allowed the e-mail addresses of their >>>own customers, either deliberately or inadvertently, to fall into the >>>hands of list peddlers who in turn sell them to e-mail marketers of >>>all stripes. Sometimes, the lists are stolen from corporate owners by >>>employees or vendors looking to make a quick profit. But in many >>>cases, the big companies are deliberately buying and selling access to >>>names, relying on privacy policies often hard to find on their >>>sites that they say permit such actions. >>> >>>"White-collar spam" is how Nick Usborne, a newsletter writer and >>>Internet marketing consultant, refers to this phenomenon. >>> >>>"When a responsible company," Mr. Usborne said, "gets someone to sign >>>up for a newsletter and says, now that we have their e-mail address >>>let's make more money off it and send them e-mail they didn't ask for, >>>that's white-collar spam." >>> >> >>A conset framework with a separate 'lock' for each person given the >>email address, would stop that. Just turn off that lock. > > > And in legal terms, European-style data privacy laws would also > restrict the resale of address information. > > - --j. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Exmh CVS > > iD8DBQE/nqmgQTcbUG5Y7woRAgNbAKDHIN2mfhC93WO5FgfYdwM53XHCQACeNNCO > N3hDsolYd29M8Nwfh/tNkYE= > =UsAB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 28 14:08:39 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 OAA17191 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZCW-0003CZ-Ek for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SJ8KV5012300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZCU-0003CJ-Ru for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17161 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZCS-0004dv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZCR-0004dq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZCF-0002zP-N6; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZBE-0002iw-UC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:07:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17100 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZBC-0004cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:06:58 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZBB-0004bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:06:58 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-290.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.172.127]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNH005KREDI0O@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:05:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3F9EBE05.80101@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Oct 2003 14:05:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, As mentioned before, various RMX-type proposals are being reconciled in a closed subgroup under the direction of Alan Dekok. This subgroup operates its own mailing list, and its mailing list archive is now coming online. It is available at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 14:36:33 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 OAA18559 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZdW-0006eT-B7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SJaEnn025563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZdW-0006eE-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18530 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZdT-00056x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZdT-00056u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZdJ-0006Yx-EM; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZdA-0006YJ-3k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18519 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZd7-00056b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:49 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu ([192.5.53.207]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZd6-00056X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:48 -0500 Received: from lung.cs.rochester.edu (nano.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.95]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/004) with ESMTP id h9SJZm907939 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (bukys@localhost) by lung.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/Q++) with SMTP id h9SJZlq20073; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200310281935.h9SJZlq20073@lung.cs.rochester.edu> To: asrg@ietf.org cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Re: 6. Proposals - Reputation systems - Project Lumos (was Re: [Asrg] NAI/ESPC Project Lumos whitepaper & request for comment) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:04:04 EDT." <3F788224.3050109@solidmatrix.com> From: Liudvikas Bukys Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Oct 2003 14:35:47 -0500 For what it's worth, since ESPC Project Lumos is asking for feedback, http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/project_lumos.asp here is what I sent them: ----- I have the following feedback regarding the Project Lumos proposal: - Protocol and header improvements to support sender reputation are a good thing. - Maintaining sender reputation data is hard -- there are often incentives that present conflicts of interest to the operators of a sytem, especially when pretty-clean senders push into grey areas. - It is problematic to use a single reputation metric to describe the behavior of a sender that potentially sends on behalf of many clients for many purposes. - Acceptance at any time by the system of anything weaker than confirmed opt-in hurts the reputation of Lumos itself. It may be that, if widely adopted, end-users may invert the meaning and declare that Lumos-approved is a "negative score". - Sender reputation systems are, necessarily, sender-oriented. It is good that they improve the chances of getting a definitive answer to the questions "Did this sender send this" and "What is the reputation of this sender?". - It is BETTER to definitely answer the user-oriented questions "Did I authorize this sender to send this email?" and "How do I revoke this authorization now?" I suggest that extending the Lumos work: - from definitive proof of sender reputation, - to definitive proof of individual consent, would be an even stronger approach, and would lessen the problem of having only one metric that describes all the behaviour of a sender (a metric that may be not useful to many recipients, may involve undesirable spillover when one sender represents many clients, or may be used by recipients differently than intended by the project or its participants). Liudvikas Bukys University of Rochester Computer Science Department 734 Computer Studies Building Rochester, NY 14627-0226 tel# 585-275-7747 fax# 585-273-4556 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 14:47:56 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 OAA18984 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZoV-0007wy-Ez for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SJlZDx030554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZoV-0007wj-Av for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18967 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZoS-0005HP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZoS-0005HM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZmz-0007h9-BJ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEZm6-0007ct-RF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:45:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18907 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZm3-0005Fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:45:04 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEZm3-0005Fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:45:03 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 418821F001; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:48:24 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Andreas Saurwein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <20031028194824.GN11605@mail> References: <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> <6.0.0.22.0.20031028160730.01c82a28@mail.uniwares.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031028160730.01c82a28@mail.uniwares.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:48:24 -0500 > At 28/10/2003 15:52 Tuesday, David wrote: > >Events such as 'Joe's laptop gets stolen' are likely to be quite rare. > >As such, the risk of receiving spam due to this situation is so low that > >it doesn't present much of an argument to convince me that I should > >spend CPU resources doing content based filtering on every mail I > >receive (if there are other options for eliminating some quantity of > >spam). > > May I direct you to http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/25715.html ?? > Pay special attention to the small paragraph which reads: > > "According to CCC's data, up to 60 per cent of laptop claims received are > for accidental damange. The rest are for theft. From this it extrapolates - > on the assumption that there are five million laptops in circulation in the > UK (a bit high, maybe?) that 100,000 are damaged and c.67,000 are stolen > every year. Most thefts apparently occur in offices and schools (12 per > cent each)." > > I would not call approx. 67.000 stolen laptops by year only in the UK a > "quite rare" event. 67,000 / 5,000,000 = 1.34% Also, as a percentage of email users as a whole, it's even tinier. You don't estimate how many of those laptops aren't immediately formatted and resold. Sure, if identity theft was key to spammers propagating spam, maybe more laptops would be stolen - that of course completely ignores my comments about ISPs limiting the number of messages sent to some order of magnitide within the normal behaviour of a user. I suppose 1.34% isn't 'quite rare' it's only 'pretty uncommon', hmm? David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 15:06:34 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 PAA20424 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEa6P-0002YP-La for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SK65IK009811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEa6P-0002YA-H0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20359 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEa6M-0005hG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEa6M-0005hD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEa6L-0002Vn-ME; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEa5n-0002Tb-PP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:05:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20305 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEa5k-0005h1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:05:24 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEa5j-0005ga-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:05:24 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9SK4KSe006227; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:04:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9ECC1C.1090204@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: Yakov Shafranovich , Paul Judge References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> <2722.192.168.0.7.1065678219.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> <000901c38e44$0c7636a0$0b0d2a42@kit> <3F86DDD2.1080204@solidmatrix.com> <3F86E58F.4070303@fireserve.net> <3F86F221.9070208@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3F86F221.9070208@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Technical 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: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:05:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was asked if I'd like to take over the two documents below. Is there really a strong objection to making them in HTML? Other than cleaning up the tabs and the line wraps, there's not much that I see can be done with them if they can't be made more quickly scannable. And I'll admit, I can mentally get a better grasp on the documents in order to keep them updated if they are more easily digested, tabular, etc. Having intra document links, and a few tables makes for a MUCH more readable document. As an example (leave out the fancy search table at the top): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/csl/doc/howto/ssh/ Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Hi, > > No one, the closest thing we have to this is the taxonomy and survey > of solutions: > > http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt > http://www.irtf.org/asrg/survey_of_proposals.htm > > If you want to take over or help with these, please let us know. > > Yakov > > > Dennis Gearon wrote: > >> Who is working on compiling the 'definite sender identification >> methods'? >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 15:18:32 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 PAA22054 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEaI5-0004Dg-I0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SKI9iR016214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEaI5-0004DR-Dr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22001 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEaI4-0005wk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEaI3-0005wh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEaHw-00046G-Og; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEaH5-00042Z-Qa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21832 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEaH4-0005w8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:06 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEaH3-0005w5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:06 -0500 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 1AEaHb-0001iQ-00; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:39 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:05:41 EST." <3F9EBE05.80101@solidmatrix.com> cc: asrg-rmx@ntp.org 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, 28 Oct 2003 15:17:39 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > As mentioned before, various RMX-type proposals are being reconciled in > a closed subgroup under the direction of Alan Dekok. This subgroup > operates its own mailing list, and its mailing list archive is now > coming online. I'll quickly summarize the work of the group so far. We've been working with the proposals DRIP, DMP, RMX, and SPF, in an attempt to reach consensus on a collaborative proposal. We have a first stab at an outline for a group proposal, and are working on ironing out differences in goals and implementation for the proposals. The proposals differ mainly in implementation details. They have some overlap, and some differing design goals. The draft outline discusses the goals and impact of the combined proposal, without getting into implementation details. We have a statement of the scope of the problem: to be able to detect forgeries of domain names in SMTP EHLO and MAIL FROM. A significant amount of effort has been put into discussing the cost and impact of implementing any RMX-style proposal. This area has been the main point of discussion on the list. We want to ensure that the issues raised on ASRG and elsewhere are addressed in the document. This information will help not only to motivate the document, but also to minimize the contentious discussions which have historically surrounded RMX-style proposals. Once we have consensus on the overall outline and impact of the proposed system, I will post a draft document to ASRG for wider review. The sub-group can then start working on implementation details. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 18:03:39 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 SAA04779 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcrt-0004A4-Sx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SN3H46015990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcrt-00049p-Ll for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04721 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcrr-0002BW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcrq-0002BT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcrc-00046R-MO; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:03:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcrI-00044k-Ou for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:02:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04698 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcrG-0002Au-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:02:38 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcrF-0002Ar-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:02:37 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9SN06Yw023949; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:00:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:00:06 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111316F@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'David Maxwell'" , "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Eric Dean , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 15:00:04 -0800 > The issue here is that accountability facilitates a web of > trust (or web > of distrust) - if that ISP is known to give out anonymous > accounts, then > a recipient can choose that their 'view of the internet' shouldn't > include receiving mail from users at an ISP with that policy. I don't care what the ISPs do to authenticate end users, all I care about is whether they send spam or not. I think that one of the problems with ad-hoc spam approaches is that secondary characteristics are getting confused with causes. Use of anonymous email accounts may be something that only appeals to geeks but that does not mean that it is evil in and of itself, any more than using free ISPs is bad. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 18:11:26 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 SAA05772 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEczU-0005Ic-53 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9SNB870020364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEczT-0005IN-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05711 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEczR-0002JJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEczQ-0002JG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEczO-0005EH-27; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcyQ-00059W-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05585 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:09:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcyN-0002I8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:09:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcyF-0002I3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:09:51 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9SN9nIG012608; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:09:49 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113170@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brian Adams'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 15:09:45 -0800 > When you hold ISPs responsible, you are holding them accountable for > their users. How far will that ago? No, you are holding them strictly accountable for the bits they ship. > If an ISP allows some anonymous usage with lets say a rate limiter or > free email, how long will it take until spammers start > abusing that and > ISPs will begin to shut down such services? The ISP has to protect their reputation, holding the user accountable is one way to do that. Another would be to implement a rate limiting scheme at the end user's machine. End user anonymity is not an intrinsic problem, it is a problem for certain proposed solutions. I dont believe that requirements should be fitted to solutions. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 19:02:23 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 TAA09215 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdmo-0002cO-DS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T026WM010058 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdmo-0002c9-7n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09152 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdml-0003IF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdmk-0003IC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdmi-0002ZV-Nu; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:02:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdmT-0002Xc-45 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09137 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdmP-0003HU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:01:41 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdmP-0003HR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:01:41 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9T01fIG027391; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:01:41 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113172@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 16:01:39 -0800 > SMTP was designed and intended to be used in a trusted environment. > Therefore, it has no design features to prevent spam, and no design > features to help protect the lives of human rights workers. Anyone > relying on RFC 2821 SMTP for either "feature" is fooling themselves. Actually this is not quite true. The work of Ithiel deSola Pool was very inflential in the design of the Internet. The end to end principle was intended to directly address control and censorship issues. That is not completely relevant to the current question. The IETF does not own the Internet, parents do not own children. The issue is what the users of the Internet want. What the community wants is a solution to both problems. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 19:13:25 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 TAA09891 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdxS-0004Qy-Vn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T0D6fA017038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdxS-0004Qj-QG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09874 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdxR-0003XT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdxQ-0003XQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdxM-0004Od-EJ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdwa-0004K8-RN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09809 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdwZ-0003Vv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:12:11 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdwY-0003Vp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:12:10 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9T0CAIG000145; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:12:10 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113173@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 16:12:06 -0800 > Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile > situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal > will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected. I think that the requirement for anonymity is being mis-stated here. What is really required is untraceability. This is not really true anonymity since senders want to be able to establish reputations in general. Simple architectural proposal: Sender X sends email to mail forwarder who acts as a gateway, adding the necessary information to authenticate the gateway as the party vouching for the message. The sender can use a proprietary protocol for this, at the extreme using a steganographic mechanism, including an Adam Back style hash cash proof that some work has been expended. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 19:30:32 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 TAA11203 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeE0-0006oE-6p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T0UCTp026168 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeDz-0006mG-W3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11118 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeDy-0003xe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeDx-0003xb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeDq-0006g2-P8; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeD5-0006ap-T3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11001 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeD4-0003tq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:14 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeD3-0003te-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:13 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9T0RtIG003756; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:27:55 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113174@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" Cc: David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 16:27:54 -0800 > Going off-tangent for a second - is there anything for filter > developers > that the ASRG or IRTF/IETF can do in terms of perhaps helping > to develop > a common standard of some sort? Difficult, most of us who are active in that area tend to regard filter technology as being an area for competing proprietary schemes. The role that the IETF could play is to provide standard ways that senders can use to convince receivers that they are legitimate, this can then be used as additional input to the spam filter. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 20:09:37 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 UAA13720 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEepo-0003CW-UI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T19Goq012298 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEepo-0003CH-PG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13656 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEepm-0004uT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEepm-0004uQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEepZ-00037T-Rz; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEepT-00036z-1U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:08:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13609 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:08:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEepM-0004tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:08:48 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEepM-0004sg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:08:48 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-368-847.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.155.53]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNH00CSNV5NEA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:08:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Technical Solutions In-reply-to: <3F9ECC1C.1090204@fireserve.net> To: Dennis Gearon Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Paul Judge Message-id: <3F9F12F8.6040407@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <001101c38e22$7b7b0d40$050d2a42@kit> <2722.192.168.0.7.1065678219.squirrel@mail.kularski.us> <000901c38e44$0c7636a0$0b0d2a42@kit> <3F86DDD2.1080204@solidmatrix.com> <3F86E58F.4070303@fireserve.net> <3F86F221.9070208@solidmatrix.com> <3F9ECC1C.1090204@fireserve.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: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:08:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT For the ASRG, HTML, PDF, etc. is fine for formatting. When documents have to become Internet drafts, thats when we need to make them ASCII. So, please go right ahead and make full use of the archive (gmane.org for searching) to lookup additional proposals to add to the survey. Yakov Dennis Gearon wrote: > I was asked if I'd like to take over the two documents below. Is there > really a strong objection to making them in HTML? Other than cleaning up > the tabs and the line wraps, there's not much that I see can be done > with them if they can't be made more quickly scannable. And I'll admit, > I can mentally get a better grasp on the documents in order to keep them > updated if they are more easily digested, tabular, etc. > > Having intra document links, and a few tables makes for a MUCH more > readable document. As an example (leave out the fancy search table at > the top): > > http://www.cs.wisc.edu/csl/doc/howto/ssh/ > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> No one, the closest thing we have to this is the taxonomy and survey >> of solutions: >> >> http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt >> http://www.irtf.org/asrg/survey_of_proposals.htm >> >> If you want to take over or help with these, please let us know. >> >> Yakov >> >> >> Dennis Gearon wrote: >> >>> Who is working on compiling the 'definite sender identification >>> methods'? >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 28 20:28:28 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 UAA14625 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEf85-0005J6-1E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T1S9O4020394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEf84-0005Ir-Se for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14595 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEf82-0005HE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEf82-0005HB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEf7x-0005GE-QV; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEf7u-0005Fh-SQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14585 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEf7s-0005Gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:56 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEf7r-0005GC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:56 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (purvine-141-62.oit.edu [140.211.141.62]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id h9T1RPSe019619 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:27:26 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9F17DF.90705@fireserve.net> From: Dennis Gearon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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, 28 Oct 2003 17:29:03 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My idea for an XML layer between the: email client and the MTA the common email system spam blocking criteria and the MTA which is cascading like CSS sheets is NOT specifically for a consent framework. It can embody it, however. It can also embody any OTHER filtering, mail blocking strategies on either end. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------- >The consent framework has been discussed before, the current draft can be found at: > >http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html > >The ASRG charter also focuses on consent: > >http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html > >Someone has started work on an XML format: > >http://www.sortmonster.com/ASRG/ > >I am currently working on a new draft (long overdue). If you check back the archives, you will find lots of discussions around the consent framework, its protocols >and formats. I am hoping that a new draft will facilitate further discussions. > >Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Oct 28 23:36:36 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 XAA23423 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi48-0008Lv-Eq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T4aGqo032107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi48-0008Lm-A2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23376 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi46-0000w3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi45-0000w0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi3u-0008Gl-Db; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi3F-0008Do-BA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:35:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23326 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi3D-0000ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:35:19 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi3C-0000ue-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:35:18 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9T4Y1jo029280; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:34:01 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113176@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jonathan A. Zdziarski'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 28 Oct 2003 20:34:00 -0800 > > Difficult, most of us who are active in that area tend to > regard filter > > technology as being an area for competing proprietary schemes. > > You're in the wrong forums then, but your philosophy doesn't > surprise me considering that you appear to work for Verisign. VeriSign does not provide filtering technology, however I am on the technical board of a spam filtering company. As you are probably aware we do not speak for anyone but ourselves in IETF activities. The IETF has been successful in the area of protocol design. There are few who wish to repeat attempts to get into the API space. There is a reason you have to have standards to communicate that is intrinsic to the problem. There does not appear to be the same intrinsic requirement in the general applications area. > 2. Spam is a direct result of commercialization of the Internet, > therefore a commercial solution for fighting spam is, to the educated > individual, paying a company who writes viruses to use their > anti-virus software. Actually the spam appeared in 1993 which was before there was measurable commercial use of the Web, in fact it may even have predated the Internet Shopping Network. Spam is the result of a bunch of lawyers realizing that the existence of an audience created the potential for profitable spam. We could get into an argument about the first DEC spam but that hardly seems to be a good example because the sender did not repeat the practice after it was clear that it was against netiquette. Canter and Segal appear to have been the first don't care spammers. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 00:50:35 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 AAA26144 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjDk-0002tM-Dc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T5oGrV011110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjDk-0002t7-8U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26136 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjDh-000203-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjDh-0001zz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjDW-0002pn-Mi; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjCm-0002lu-BA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:49:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26118 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:49:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjCj-0001zo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:49:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjCj-0001zW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:49:13 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-804.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.240.165]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNI005O48167M@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:46:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113170@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Brian Adams'" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3F9F5427.2010904@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113170@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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, 29 Oct 2003 00:46:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>If an ISP allows some anonymous usage with lets say a rate limiter or >>free email, how long will it take until spammers start >>abusing that and >>ISPs will begin to shut down such services? > > > The ISP has to protect their reputation, holding the user accountable is one > way to do that. Another would be to implement a rate limiting scheme at the > end user's machine. > > End user anonymity is not an intrinsic problem, it is a problem for certain > proposed solutions. I dont believe that requirements should be fitted to > solutions. > I think that the requirements should state that proposal authors should address anonimity and privacy issues, not that they MUST support anonimity. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 01:09:31 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 BAA26618 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjW2-0005Xv-M7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T69A0q021313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjVy-0005XY-68 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26600 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjVv-0002Cj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjVu-0002Cg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjVs-0005TZ-CB; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEfph-0002Av-6f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:13:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16654 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEfpe-00063W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:13:10 -0500 Received: from mta02.alltel.net ([166.102.165.144] helo=mta02-srv.alltel.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEfpe-00063T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:13:10 -0500 Received: from tantor.nuclearelephant.com ([162.40.243.74]) by mta02-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20031029021309.QEZG527.mta02-srv.alltel.net@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:13:09 -0600 Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113174@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113174@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067393525.4679.76.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 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, 28 Oct 2003 21:12:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Difficult, most of us who are active in that area tend to regard filter > technology as being an area for competing proprietary schemes. You're in the wrong forums then, but your philosophy doesn't surprise me considering that you appear to work for Verisign. Those of us who are making significant breakthroughs in this field are all working together, sharing information, and agreeing on standards together. The minority of commercialized solutions are ultimately going to be chaff in the wind as: 1. A majority of commercial tools are far less accurate than the many open-source projects available today...both in spam catching and avoiding false positives. 2. Spam is a direct result of commercialization of the Internet, therefore a commercial solution for fighting spam is, to the educated individual, paying a company who writes viruses to use their anti-virus software. 3. The hypocrisy of many commercialized companies who both send spam and sell anti-spam filters will (and is being) exposed. This hypocrisy will easily lead to a series of both civil suits and criminal charges, for the reason outlined in #2. But bottom line because you can't beat free, and free currently means better quality in this realm. > The role that the IETF could play is to provide standard ways that senders > can use to convince receivers that they are legitimate, this can then be > used as additional input to the spam filter. So that commercial companies can create backdoor methods to insure that they can take cash under the table to "insure spams get delivered" ? I don't think so. The IETF is not here to serve commercial industry, but to benefit the Internet Community as a whole. Sadly, the desires of both of these groups are at very opposite ends of the spectrum. FYI I have unsubscribed to this group, as I don't foresee any real accomplishment coming out of it, at least until the agenda and motivation of the group is changed to actually benefit the Internet Community...so if you have something in response, you'll need to email me privately. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 01:12:26 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 BAA26796 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjYp-0006FL-Bg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9T6C3pJ024005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjYp-0006F6-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26777 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjYm-0002Fh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjYl-0002Fe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjYn-00069k-9o; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEjXv-00063q-1n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26716 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjXr-0002EZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:03 -0500 Received: from mtaw6.prodigy.net ([64.164.98.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEjXr-0002EJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:11:03 -0500 Received: from annie (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mtaw6.prodigy.net (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9T6AW9d000136 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:10:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <3F9EE96F.8222.7DF571F@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113176@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Oct 2003 22:10:55 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > > Going off-tangent for a second - is there anything for filter > > developers > > that the ASRG or IRTF/IETF can do in terms of perhaps helping > > to develop > > a common standard of some sort? > > Difficult, most of us who are active in that area tend to regard filter > technology as being an area for competing proprietary schemes. > > The role that the IETF could play is to provide standard ways that senders > can use to convince receivers that they are legitimate, this can then be > used as additional input to the spam filter. I'm not sure that I really am ready to dip my toe in the water here, as I'm really here more to listen and learn, and to see where I may be of use - I'm certainly probably the least technically clued about many of the things you may discuss here. But, that said... Communication and indicia of legitimacy were issues which took up a large part of Email Deliverability Summit II, which was attended by the CEOs and other executive decision makers of twenty sending organizations (bulk mail houses) and twenty receiving organizations (ISPs and spam filtering companies). Specifically with respect to the latter, companies in attendance included AOL, MSN, RoadRunner, Outblaze, MSN/TV, SpamAssassin, CypherTrust, CloudMark, Ironport, MessageGate, Mail Filters, and several others. Without exception, everyone involved agreed that clear communication between senders and receivers - both on the personal level and the SMTP level, the ability to identify and separate legitimate mail from bad, and standards relating to both were of paramount importance. There were five standards promulgated at Summit II, the one which is most relevant here relating to the correct use of mail rejection codes (too many receivers send the wrong error codes, which has a ripple effect which affects not only a sender's ability to properly process the rejection, but can also impact how spam filters operate). The others relate to bounce handling, unsubscribe handling, and publication by receivers of their requirements and policies vis accepting and delivering mail. The standards are available at http://www.isipp.com/standards.php In addition, and the reason I'm really writing now, there was a great deal of interest on the part of the receivers (and the senders) in solutions which could serve to help them identify legitimate mail and senders more readily. Solutions which provide for an identification in the headers were interesting and fairly useful to ISPs, more useful to some spam filters, and solutions which allow IP address whitelisting very useful to ISPs and some other spam filters. Habeas (note: I am no longer there), EDAPP (note: that is where I am now, in addition to ISIPP), and TEOS all offer identification through headers, and Habeas and EDAPP offer IP address whitelisting. Finally, Meng Wong's presentation regarding SPF at ISPCon was really interesting, and seems to be a ready and easily implemented step towards senders being able to convince receivers that they are legitimate - or at least a first step in the triage to that end. Hopefully I'm not way off base here - if I am, I sincerely apologize. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. President/CEO Institute for Spam & Internet Public Policy Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 05:11:37 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 FAA01455 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEnIL-0004qp-Ib for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TABHxX018643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEnIL-0004qc-27 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01448 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEnIH-0005VH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEnIH-0005VE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEnI7-0004nO-MQ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:11:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEnHB-0004jd-8z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01432 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:09:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEnH7-0005Ut-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:10:01 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEnH7-0005Uq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:10:01 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AEnH8-0003W1-Rg; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:10:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3F9F17DF.90705@fireserve.net> Subject: 0. General (Was (Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General)) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: gearond@fireserve.net X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.8.0] 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, 29 Oct 2003 10:10:02 +0000 > My idea for an XML layer between the: > email client and the MTA > the common email system spam blocking criteria and the MTA > which is cascading like CSS sheets > > > is NOT specifically for a consent framework. > So where do you think it would fit in the ASRG Work Items? See: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm You'll need to figure this out so that you can give your contributions the right subject. See: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm You might also want to look at the list summary (William Leibzon) http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg/index.htm -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 08:07:37 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 IAA05860 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000K4-Qj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TD7E7i001215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000JM-9X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05844 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2b-0000Id-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2a-0000IU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2S-00009z-FP; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2L-00007s-H9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05828 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2K-0000IC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:56 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2J-0000I9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:56 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9TD6TCF074175; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031027222706.GG11605@mail> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031021115547.01c87838@mail.uniwares.com> <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> <20031022200726.GE16254@mail> <20031023171814.GM16254@mail> <20031027222706.GG11605@mail> To: David Maxwell From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Brad Knowles , 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:08 +0100 At 5:27 PM -0500 2003/10/27, David Maxwell wrote: > A DNS server being compromisable is an implementation flaw, not an > infrastructural one. It's also more difficult than forging an email > address is today, thereby raising the bar for spammers. No more difficult than writing a virus to compromise millions of PCs world-wide and make them available to you as open proxy servers. > The later would be difficult for a virus to 'know'. Easy to find out, especially if the site has implemented DRIP and RMX type solutions. >> Of course, another issue with open caching/recursive servers is >> that you can get anyone in the world to effectively host your domain >> for you, and combined with wildcards they could appear to be hosts >> for virtually all domains on the Internet. > > I don't understand your example. Then you don't understand enough about DNS security issues to be able to pass judgement on these matters. > Right, it's raising the bar, and it's also enabling other tools. It's not raising the bar. It's moving the bar, but merely horizontally. You're not improving the situation. Moreover, because you're moving the bar into territory where many admins have much less knowledge and experience, in many ways you're making the situation worse than it was before. > Without (verified) domain names, you can't have verified email > addresses. Not true. > Without (verified) email addresses, you can't have reliable user based > whitelists. Not true. > I believe that for many users, a short whitelist would be a highly > practical solution to the spam problem. It wouldn't be for myself, > personally - but for my mother, and my aunts... It wouldn't be useful for anyone who doesn't understand the details of the technical implementation, and who doesn't know what the potential failure modes are and what to do about them. In other words, the people it would be least useful for would be your mother or your aunts. > Any white or black listing proposal which doesn't address the need for > authentication of the list compared data may be worked around. Anything which causes the trust boundary to be crossed can (and will) be gamed. This is where joe-jobs come from. Authentication methods won't change this fact, unless they are based on a secure protocol which uses strong crypto at the core -- which means that they cannot possibly be implemented through the DNS. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 08:07:38 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 IAA05866 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000K5-Rr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TD7ED8001209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000JC-45 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05841 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2a-0000Ia-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2a-0000IT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2R-00009g-H7; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2F-00007E-UD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05825 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2E-0000I6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:51 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2E-0000I3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:50 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9TD6TCB074175; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> To: David Maxwell From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Cc: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , Jon Kyme , 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:41:38 +0100 At 3:20 PM -0500 2003/10/27, David Maxwell wrote: > In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent > definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail > senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get > something outside of that consent definition. Depends on how you define "mail from these four people", and how you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the message did actually come from them. What about messages forwarded by them from other people? Does the message have to originate uniquely from one of these four people, or are they allowed to forward messages that they themselves did not write? > I don't recall making any criticism of filters besides a) cpu intensive > and b) can't ever be perfect. I submit that authentication methods can also be CPU intensive, and usually also have a small percentage of failures, both false negatives and false positives. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 08:08:30 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 IAA05935 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq3V-0000xM-Et for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TD89G5003660 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq3T-0000t3-CW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05908 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq3S-0000JU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq3S-0000JR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq3P-0000oC-O1; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:08:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2Q-00008i-5I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05831 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2P-0000II-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:01 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2O-0000IF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:00 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9TD6TCH074175; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031027223353.GH11605@mail> References: <200310221522.AA392036500@mail.figuerres.com> <20031023160843.GI16254@mail> <20031023183955.GD18651@Space.Net> <20031024052033.GN16254@mail> <20031027223353.GH11605@mail> To: David Maxwell From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General Cc: Brad Knowles , Markus Stumpf , 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:35:51 +0100 At 5:33 PM -0500 2003/10/27, David Maxwell wrote: > That host is either the spammer's MUA, an open-relay, or an open-proxy. The only IP address information you can trust is that which is put on the message by your own MTA, and even that might be suspect (if there is a security hole in the MTA which could effect the recording of this information). > All of which are complicit in the sending of spam, so you do have > information you can use to prevent further spam from being delivered to > you in the same way. Maybe. If that machine also sends you a lot of legitimate e-mail, are you willing to cut your nose off to spite your face, based solely on the IP address information? -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 08:54:35 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 IAA05861 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000K3-Py for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TD7E1U001210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2c-0000JD-3L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05839 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2a-0000IY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2a-0000IS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2Q-00008k-At; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEq2E-000078-G4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05822 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2D-0000I0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:49 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEq2D-0000Hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:49 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9TD6TCD074175; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:06:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:03:59 +0100 At 4:25 PM -0500 2003/10/27, Alan DeKok wrote: > Do you have anything positive to offer? The only thing I can > determine from your posts is that you are opposed principle to any > attempt to modify SMTP. I am opposed to useless modifications that will serve no purpose in the long-run, and which will cause all e-mail users to give up essentially all liberties in the process. If you have actually useful proposals to make, I'm all ears. > I think we can agree that you think SMTP was handed down from on > high in the form of stone tablets, and that we're all going to h*ll > for trying to change it. You do an excellent job of intentionally mis-interpreting and mis-construing the views and words of others, and then casting them as the one true Satan against which everyone *MUST* obviously be opposed. You should get a job in the Bush administration. > That being said, do you have *anything* positive to say, which will > help address the spam problem, and not result in eternal damnation? There is no "one true absolute solution", not with the methods and tools available to us today. You can throw out the entire protocol and start over, with the attempt to create such an absolute solution, but that is not the purpose of this group. > Is there ANY possibility that an anti-spam proposal will someday > satisfy your standards? Actually, some of the tools already available to us today do the best job that I think could be reasonably expected. I think the real key is to lay out very clearly what kinds of things should not be done, what the consequences are if you do them anyway, and make recommendations as to how people can configure their software so as to take information from the broadest array of reasonable input sources and therefore make the most informed decision it could reasonably make. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 09:28:31 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 JAA09106 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErIx-0004DY-IZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TESBxK016206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErIx-0004DJ-Bu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09096 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErIv-0001cp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErIv-0001cm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErIm-0004AX-TI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:28:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErHv-00042F-39 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:27:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09059 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErHt-0001cG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:27:05 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErHs-0001cC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:27:04 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9TER2Am007010; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:27:02 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113177@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brian Adams'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:26:53 -0800 > > I think that the requirements should state that proposal > authors should > address anonimity and privacy issues, not that they MUST > support anonimity. This sounds like the right approach to me. We are unlikely to have one size fits all solution, mechanisms that support true anonymity are likely to be somewhat restrictive in other ways. I think we need to clarify the term however. Anonymity End user anonymity ISP anonymity (why oh why would this be needed) Untraceable and unlinkable message (c.f. Chaum cash) Untraceable message In most circumstances anonymity is not the core requirement, untraceability is. Anyone can post as anonymous coward on slashdot, this is not what most disidents want. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 12:30:34 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 MAA22029 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEu97-0004hT-Bv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9THUDgk018061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEu97-0004hE-6z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21966 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEu95-00064l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEu95-00064h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEu8w-0004de-R0; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:30:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEu8e-0004ah-Be for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:29:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21899 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEu8c-00062K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:29:42 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEtxV-0005bJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:18:13 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEttf-0003ZE-Po for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:14:15 -0500 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 1AEtuH-0001x6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:14:53 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:03:59 +0100." 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, 29 Oct 2003 12:14:53 -0500 Brad Knowles wrote: > > That being said, do you have *anything* positive to say, which will > > help address the spam problem, .... > > There is no "one true absolute solution", not with the methods > and tools available to us today. "help address the spam problem" != "one true absolute solution" > You can throw out the entire protocol and start over, with the > attempt to create such an absolute solution, but that is not the > purpose of this group. I never said that, either. > You do an excellent job of intentionally mis-interpreting and > mis-construing the views and words of others, Hmm... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 14:00:16 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 OAA27222 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEvXw-0006JU-CK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TIxuXn024267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEvXv-0006JD-KS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26931 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEvXr-0000JE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:51 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEvTr-0000BX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:55:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEvHF-0006vA-HI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:42:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEvGb-0004ou-9t; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErNz-0004xa-P6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:33:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09296 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErNx-0001hw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:33:21 -0500 Received: from vhost109.his.com ([216.194.225.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErNx-0001ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:33:21 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9TEXIC7077752; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:33:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> References: <1067270848.3115.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027184020.GB11605@mail> <1067280330.3115.107.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027192813.GC11605@mail> <1067282925.1875.26.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027194432.GD11605@mail> <1067284214.1875.38.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031027202001.GE11605@mail> <1067287079.1875.83.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com> <20031028175252.GM11605@mail> To: David Maxwell From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Cc: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" , Jon Kyme , 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:37:50 +0100 At 12:52 PM -0500 2003/10/28, David Maxwell wrote: > Additionally, you highlight the fact that ISPs need tools to provide > better control over users use of resources. If Joe normally sends less > than 20 emails a day, and a spammer takes over his identity, shouldn't > 200+ emails in one day be enough to shut him down? Trojan a million machines, have them watch the outbound traffic for a few days, then configure them to send an average of about 1x that amount as spam. That should be a low enough value to by-pass any such per-user rate limits. Moreover, this puts us into a similar situation where the RIAA is suing 12-year old girls and grandmothers, because we have mis-identified their apparent unusual activity, or because they did things (or their system did things) and they were not aware of the consequences. > No, you can never 'trust' anyone, and you can never filter perfectly, > but if each 'identity theft' could only result in a handful of spam > reaching the network, versus the millions delivered today, then the > change would be significantly beneficial to the network as a whole. At best, it would make it marginally more difficult to use open proxies, but spammers would just trojan a larger number to arrive at the same results. Or, they'd get smarter and pool their resources and get into outsourcing arrangements. Or any or all of the above. And that would only be at the ISPs where they implement such per-user rate limiting controls, which would be expensive and difficult to implement. You could do a whitelist for ISPs that do implement such per-user rate limiting, but you'd have to make sure that it's not implemented via the DNS (otherwise you get into all sorts of nasty cache poisoning issues, such as have been previously discussed). > This leaves the question of whether you want to have internet bandwidth > soaked up by spam, just so you can have more ham input for your filter > learning system? Bandwidth-wise, spam has never shown up on any measures of network concerns, and never will. A few browsings of porno websites will generate far more traffic than you'd ever receive in a single day. The cost to ISPs has nothing to do with bandwidth utilization. It has to do with transactional costs (handling X messages per second/minute/hour/day), storage costs, CPU load caused by trying to reduce spam, etc.... The cost to individuals does sometime have a bandwidth cost, but again that rapidly disappears in the noise when compared to web traffic, etc.... -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 15:06:37 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 PAA02429 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEwa8-0005ak-4G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TK6G2A021490 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEwa7-0005aW-ST for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02350 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEwa5-00028a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEwa4-00028X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEwZt-0005WC-HS; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEwZq-0005Vi-4W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:05:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02316 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEwZn-00028F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:05:55 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEwZm-000286-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:05:54 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9TK4b0O021792; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:04:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:04:37 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111317F@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Knowles'" , "'David Maxwell'" Cc: "'Jonathan A. Zdziarski'" , "'Jon Kyme'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 12:04:33 -0800 I submit that authentication is irrelevant unless you the use the output of the process as the input to a filter. Clearly you can reject mail that the authentication process flags as forged. But not all email will be authenticated and some of the authenticated email will be spam. This does not disqualify authentication from consideration, it just means to be realistic. Equally I detect something of a damned if you do or don't attitude. I personally beleive that there is a lot of potential in mechanisms such as spf which offer less than cryptograpically secure authentication. I think we also need to go further but there is no cost to the receiver to support both and weight according to the actual spam reduction measured. Why argue over an issue when there will be an empirical measure? The pushback we get agaisnt spf 9r rmx is that it is spoofable and ownership of a domain alone is not sufficient. Ok use certs. The pushback we get against certs is that the above is unrealistic! The process is too expensive etc. Sure it is a reasonable argment, but not if you also claim that spf is insufficient. I suspect that there is truth to both sides, spf will be sufficient short term and limited domain but hey it is free. So are certificates if people are right and it turns out we do not need them. I suggest that if the architectural approach is broad enough there will be a use for whatever is proposed. There is a general problem with binding dns names to protocols in the reverse direction. Spam is only one symptom. Phill -----Original Message----- From: Brad Knowles Sent: Wed Oct 29 05:11:13 2003 To: David Maxwell Cc: Jonathan A. Zdziarski; Jon Kyme; ASRG Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) At 3:20 PM -0500 2003/10/27, David Maxwell wrote: > In the case of Access controls, if someone has a tight consent > definition such as 'I accept mail from these four people', and if mail > senders are authenticated, then this recipient will _never_ get > something outside of that consent definition. Depends on how you define "mail from these four people", and how you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the message did actually come from them. What about messages forwarded by them from other people? Does the message have to originate uniquely from one of these four people, or are they allowed to forward messages that they themselves did not write? > I don't recall making any criticism of filters besides a) cpu intensive > and b) can't ever be perfect. I submit that authentication methods can also be CPU intensive, and usually also have a small percentage of failures, both false negatives and false positives. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 29 15:55:39 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 PAA05663 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLZ-00031s-CH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TKtHqf011641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLZ-00031a-33 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05647 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLX-0003Ci-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLX-0003Cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLL-0002uH-By; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLC-0002tF-7v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05640 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLA-0003CN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:52 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLA-0003Bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:52 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:09 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:18 -0500 Message-ID: <01C39E34.C5592E70.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jonathan A. Zdziarski'" , Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 15:05:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And thus in a proposal such a philosophy should be explicitly stated and that would satisfy the requirement. -e On Monday, October 27, 2003 11:07 AM, Jonathan A. Zdziarski [SMTP:jonathan@nuclearelephant.com] wrote: > > Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. > > That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. > > This eliminates all statistical-based filters (Bayesian, Chi-Square, > etc.), which are among the most successful spam tools that exist today, > as the sender's true identity is of no importance to the filter. These > filters are based on the philosophy that all email will continue to be > anonymous and therefore pays attention to the one tell-tale > characteristic of all spams: their content. So I would recommend if > you're going to require that a proposal address the issue of anonymity, > you give the author the ability to suggest that it is ignored by the > filter. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 29 16:42:27 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 QAA08242 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy4t-0007bx-EA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TLg7nl029249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy4t-0007bf-7d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08163 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy4q-00044Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:04 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy4q-000449-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AExwa-0003JW-Qg for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExw5-0006La-D7; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExv8-0006HY-Sj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07799 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv7-0003xb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv6-0003x9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:00 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:11 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01C39E3A.154C9CA0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jonathan A. Zdziarski'" , David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 16:10:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan, et. al. In the case presented 'Burden'[1] is the technical consideration at issue. As with any system or systems proposed this specific technical concern (an 'Ongoing effort' concern) should be evaluated after adoption, however I believe what you are positing as an argument is a 'Balance of burdens' issue where the sender would be at a greater burden perhaps making the solution untenable. Am I missing something? -e [1] D. Crocker, J. Levine and V. Schryver, "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms", work in progress, Internet-Draft draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt, June 2003. On Monday, October 27, 2003 3:38 PM, Jonathan A. Zdziarski [SMTP:jonathan@nuclearelephant.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > You also need to take into consideration the 'usability' issue with > regards to access lists. If you are using a reply-based list (where you > have to reply to get added to their access list), there are many > individuals (including myself) who _will not_ converse with someone > using this approach for many reasons including both resources and > philosophy. If you want to catch 100% of spams, disconnect your mail > server from the public Internet - but you'll find it's not quite as > usable. > > So there's a balance...I'm not saying access controls are useless...but > they certainly are no single solution. 8<...>8 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 16:44:39 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 PAA05662 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLZ-00031r-C4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TKtHRt011639 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLZ-00031Z-2s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05646 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLX-0003Cg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLX-0003Cb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLK-0002u0-Ob; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExLB-0002tA-Si for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05637 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExLA-0003CK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:52 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExL9-0003Bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:54:52 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:07 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01C39E34.C33738D0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , ASRG Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 15:03:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is a correct assessment of the issue. It should be noted in the proposal, and not ignored. In this way all proposal may receive fair treatment with respect to how anonymity and accountability are addressed. Though a proposal may present an obvious mechanism for obliterating or ensuring accountability reviewers should be made explicitly aware of these issues. -e On Monday, October 27, 2003 10:59 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > > Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile > > situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal > > will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected. > > > > No such requirement is made. Only that proposals address the issue. > If you have strong objections to anything in the requirements document - it > would be best if you made this clear. > > Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal. > That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be. > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 29 16:45:09 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 QAA08571 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy7W-0007lj-Gf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TLio9x029857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy7W-0007lU-Bm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08470 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy7U-0004D6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:48 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy4q-00043K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AExwd-0003JX-S2 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExw6-0006Lu-DU; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExvA-0006Hr-35 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07806 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv8-0003xj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:02 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv7-0003x9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:19 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01C39E3A.1A6BF3C0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brian Adams'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 16:29:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Then I think the present treatment should be satisfactory that: "Proposals MUST address issues of accountability and anonymity of MTS users, specifically message senders." So not to specifically support anonymity but to '...address issues of...'. To be clear, this means to explicitly state how or whether the approach 'treats' these issues. On Wednesday, October 29, 2003 12:46 AM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>If an ISP allows some anonymous usage with lets say a rate limiter or > >>free email, how long will it take until spammers start > >>abusing that and > >>ISPs will begin to shut down such services? > > > > > > The ISP has to protect their reputation, holding the user accountable is > > one > > way to do that. Another would be to implement a rate limiting scheme at the > > end user's machine. > > > > End user anonymity is not an intrinsic problem, it is a problem for certain > > proposed solutions. I dont believe that requirements should be fitted to > > solutions. > > > > I think that the requirements should state that proposal authors should > address anonimity and privacy issues, not that they MUST support anonimity. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 16:56:32 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 QAA09025 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyIW-0000fI-Fd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TLuCub002548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyIW-0000f1-AV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09011 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyIU-0004QH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyIT-0004QE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyIL-0000aa-Hg; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyHj-0000W4-RM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:55:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08981 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyHh-0004PV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:55:21 -0500 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.132] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyHg-0004PP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:55:21 -0500 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 1AEyIP-00026n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:05 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:01:39 PST." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113172@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:05 -0500 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > > SMTP was designed and intended to be used in a trusted environment. > > Therefore, it has no design features to prevent spam, and no design > > features to help protect the lives of human rights workers. Anyone > > relying on RFC 2821 SMTP for either "feature" is fooling themselves. > > Actually this is not quite true. The work of Ithiel deSola Pool was very > inflential in the design of the Internet. The end to end principle was > intended to directly address control and censorship issues. I understand. But "end to end" issues are very different from network abuse issues. Preventing network abuse isn't censorship. Preventing forgery of my domain in spam isn't censorship (and yes, it happens a fair bit.) The RMX-style solutions allow recipients to make ISP's accountable for their network traffic. They don't affect end-user accountability, privacy, or authentication. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 17:29:39 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 QAA08243 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy4t-0007cK-RC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9TLg7mZ029274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEy4t-0007bg-Cv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08160 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy4q-00044L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:04 -0500 Received: from sausage.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEy4q-000449-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:42:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AExwc-0003JV-D9 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExw5-0006Li-RJ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AExv9-0006Hf-Ox for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07802 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv7-0003xg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AExv6-0003x9-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:17 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:31:23 -0500 Message-ID: <01C39E3A.17545380.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Brian Adams'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonimity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) 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, 29 Oct 2003 16:23:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:10 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > End user anonymity is not an intrinsic problem, it is a problem for certain > proposed solutions. I dont believe that requirements should be fitted to > solutions. I agree. However, it is apropos to stipulate that requirements state how this issue is addressed, IMHO. This is not a constraint on any proposal, other than to explicitly state how or whether it is 'handled' by the proposal. IMO, it is perfectly appropriate to state - '...this proposal is designed to preserve the practical anonymity of MUA users...' OR, '...this proposal does not apply any controls to address perceived accountability or anonymity...'. I do not think that represents any type of constraint. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 20:22:38 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 UAA18599 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Vx-0002tP-Sq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9U1MHxQ011115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Vx-0002tC-Ni for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18585 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1Vv-0001zm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1Vv-0001zj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Vi-0002q4-AV; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Nr-0001F8-3s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:13:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18111 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1No-0001nP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:13:52 -0500 Received: from [216.248.154.251] (helo=ams.fm) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1Nn-0001mZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:13:51 -0500 Received: from gw_chs-Message_Server by ams.fm with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:06:41 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 From: "Frank McCoy" To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_A2FC3031.12731C81" Subject: [Asrg] Source Tracking and Authentication 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:06:17 -0500 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_A2FC3031.12731C81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This may be an idea that has already been proposed. If so, sorry for the = duplication. I've long been of the opinion that spam can be reduced = significantly by denying spammers the use of forged domain identities. I = believe this idea will go a long way toward that goal without adding much = data overhead to typical mail transactions between mail servers or = clients. I would appreciate an expert critique. The objective of this strategy is to reduce or eliminate emails accepted = for delivery to an electronic mail user which originate from a fraudulent = sender identity. In turn, attribution of unsolicited emails to a valid = email sender identity facilitates enforcement of policies to forbid or = control the sending of unsolicited emails to third parties.=20 In essence, this strategy is comprised of two complementary modules of = code. One set of instructions is a part of the recipient's email system, = implemented as part of the recipient's Post Office Protocol server or as = part of the email user's Reader or Client Browser software. The other set = of instructions resides on a computer designated by the Administrator of = the particular sending email Domain as the Email Domain Authenticator = (hereinafter "EDA").=20 The EDA would, for each email client or group of clients, periodically = generate a short group of randomly-chosen letters or numbers (hereinafter = "Authenticator String" or "AS"). A record would be kept of past AS values = and the periods of time during which they were valid. When an email user sends an email, the user's Browser would query the EDA = and ascertain the currently valid AS value. This value would be inserted = into the email Header along with the EDA's time stamp for delivery along = with the text content of the email. Upon receipt of the email by a POP or Browser, the AS value time stamp are = sent to the EDA of the originating email Domain and parsed against the = EDA's history of valid AS and timestamp values. If these values agree, = the EDA replies with a statement of "true" and if not the EDA replies with = a statement of "false." The EDA hostname would have to be provided by DNS = and would, as such, be subject to traditional DNS security and authenticity= . An EDA type record would have to be added to the other host types now = recognized for DNS. An AS or mail message without a domain name or that = refers to a dotted quad or other direct IP address for AS verification = must automatically fail authentication at the POP server. Access to the EDA to obtain a valid AS could be secured in a variety of = ways, such as by limiting the numerical addresses to a particular range = (IP address range), by username and password or by secure transaction = protocols. These strategies are already well known and widely implemented.= Access to the EDA for AS validation (to obtain a "true" or "false" as = previously described) should be public and unrestricted. AS values will = become compromised, such as by the forwarding of email by others, but will = remain valid for a finite period of time determined by the email domain = Administrator. This valid period might reasonably be measured in hours or = days. Thus, there is little advantage to gaining access to the AS. = Unless it is used quickly, it will be invalid.=20 Finally, this can be implemented slowly across the Internet, as the user = may determine how a failed AS is handled. So-called "spam" can be controlled by the previously described strategy in = a variety of ways. Presuming a malicious email user ("spammer") seeks to = send email to a list of email addressees and presuming the recipients = employ the previously described AS strategy:=20 email originating from nonexistent domains will fail the AS validation, as = there will be no EAD to reply=20 email originating from nonexistent user names within legitimate domains = will fail, as the EAD will reply "false" emails originating from falsified user names (users with valid accounts = within legitimate email domains whose email identities have been gathered = by a spammer for this purpose) and bearing compromised valid AS values, = will only be effective for a limited time. Thereafter, the EAD will reply = "false" to the expired AS. Spam lists would have very short lives. Administrators may elect to set limits on the number of AS validations = returned as "true" for a particular email account within a particular time = period. Thus a spammer could not make use of a legitimate email account = acquired for the sole purpose of providing AS authentication, such as from = hotmail.com. The administrators of hotmail.com and other free email services should = additionally create a limit on the number of account creation requests = that are accepted from any particular IP address over a given period of = time, perhaps, and independently validate the IP addresses given by the = requesting client host. For this exploit, the number of spam emails would = be the product of the number of free addresses registered times the limit = of permitted AS validations per email account per unit time. Alternatively= , the hotmail administrators could adopt a very short "time to live" (TTL) = for AS values. ISPs might find it necessary to limit the number of MAC addresses that a = particular subscriber can register, as this might allow a subscriber to = manually change the MAC, then re-login and get a different IP address, = thus bypassing #5. In any event, the total number of spams that can be = sent is the product of the number from 6 times the number from 5 times the = number from 4 and is subject to the expiration of the AS values because of = the passage of time and the reporting of the email addresses as sources of = spam, resulting in shutdown. In any event, spam could only originate from valid domains and from = identified user identities within those domains. This would make such = emails much more difficult to originate, much less likely to be delivered = and would make so-called "spam lists" largely worthless. =20 Frank McCoy --=_A2FC3031.12731C81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Description: HTML Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This may be an = idea that has=20 already been proposed.  If so, sorry for the duplication.  I've = long=20 been of the opinion that spam can be reduced significantly by denying = spammers=20 the use of forged domain identities.  I believe this idea will go a = long=20 way toward that goal without adding much data overhead to typical mail=20 transactions between mail servers or clients.  I would appreciate an = expert=20 critique.

The objective of = this=20 strategy is to reduce or eliminate emails accepted for delivery to an = electronic=20 mail user which originate from a fraudulent sender identity.  In = turn,=20 attribution of unsolicited emails to a valid email sender identity = facilitates=20 enforcement of policies to forbid or control the sending of unsolicited = emails=20 to third parties. 

In essence, this = strategy is=20 comprised of two complementary modules of code.  One set of instructions is a = part of the=20 recipient’s email system, implemented as part of the recipient’= s Post Office=20 Protocol server or as part of the email user’s Reader or Client = Browser=20 software.  The other set = of=20 instructions resides on a computer designated by the Administrator of = the=20 particular sending email Domain as the Email Domain Authenticator = (hereinafter=20 “EDA”). 

The EDA would, for = each=20 email client or group of clients, periodically generate a short group = of=20 randomly-chosen letters or numbers (hereinafter “Authenticator = String” or=20 “AS”).  A record = would be kept of=20 past AS values and the periods of time during which they were valid.=

When an email user = sends an=20 email, the user’s Browser would query the EDA and ascertain the = currently valid=20 AS value.  This value would = be=20 inserted into the email Header along with the EDA's time stamp for = delivery=20 along with the text content of the email.

Upon receipt of = the email by=20 a POP or Browser, the AS value time stamp are sent to the EDA of the = originating=20 email Domain and parsed against the EDA's history of valid AS and = timestamp=20 values.  If these values = agree, the=20 EDA replies with a statement of “true” and if not the EDA = replies with a=20 statement of “false.”  = The EDA=20 hostname would have to be provided by DNS and would, as such, be subject = to=20 traditional DNS security and authenticity. =20 An EDA type record would have to be added to the other host types = now=20 recognized for DNS.  An AS = or mail=20 message without a domain name or that refers to a dotted quad or other = direct IP=20 address for AS verification must automatically fail authentication at the = POP=20 server.

Access to the EDA = to obtain=20 a valid AS could be secured in a variety of ways, such as by limiting = the=20 numerical addresses to a particular range (IP address range), by username = and=20 password or by secure transaction protocols.  These strategies are already = well known=20 and widely implemented.

Access to the EDA = for AS=20 validation (to obtain a “true” or “false” as = previously described) should be=20 public and unrestricted.  AS = values=20 will become compromised, such as by the forwarding of email by others, but = will=20 remain valid for a finite period of time determined by the email domain=20 Administrator.  This valid = period=20 might reasonably be measured in hours or days.  Thus, there is little advantage = to=20 gaining access to the AS.  = Unless it=20 is used quickly, it will be invalid. 

Finally, this can = be=20 implemented slowly across the Internet, as the user may determine how a = failed=20 AS is handled.

So-called = “spam” can be=20 controlled by the previously described strategy in a variety of ways.  Presuming a malicious email = user=20 (“spammer”) seeks to send email to a list of email addressees = and presuming the=20 recipients employ the previously described AS strategy: 

  1. email originating from nonexistent domains = will=20 fail the AS validation, as there will be no EAD to reply=20
  2. email originating from nonexistent user = names=20 within legitimate domains will fail, as the EAD will reply=20 “false”
  3. emails originating from falsified user = names (users=20 with valid accounts within legitimate email domains whose email = identities=20 have been gathered by a spammer for this purpose) and bearing compromised= =20 valid AS values, will only be effective for a limited time.  Thereafter, the EAD will reply = “false”=20 to the expired AS.  Spam = lists=20 would have very short lives.
  4. Administrators may elect to set limits on = the=20 number of AS validations returned as “true” for a particular = email account=20 within a particular time period. = =20 Thus a spammer could not make use of a legitimate email account=20= acquired for the sole purpose of providing AS authentication, such as = from=20 hotmail.com.
  5. The administrators of hotmail.com and other = free=20 email services should additionally create a limit on the number of = account=20 creation requests that are accepted from any particular IP address over = a=20 given period of time, perhaps, and independently validate the IP = addresses=20 given by the requesting client host. =20 For this exploit, the number of spam emails would be the product = of the=20 number of free addresses registered times the limit of permitted AS=20 validations per email account per unit time.  Alternatively, the hotmail=20 administrators could adopt a very short “time to live” (TTL) = for AS=20 values.
  6. ISPs might find it necessary to limit the = number of=20 MAC addresses that a particular subscriber can register, as this might = allow a=20 subscriber to manually change the MAC, then re-login and get a different = IP=20 address, thus bypassing #5.  = In=20 any event, the total number of spams that can be sent is the product of = the=20 number from 6 times the number from 5 times the number from 4 and is = subject=20 to the expiration of the AS values because of the passage of time and = the=20 reporting of the email addresses as sources of spam, resulting in=20 shutdown.
  7. In any event, spam could only originate = from valid=20 domains and from identified user identities within those domains.   This would make such = emails much=20 more difficult to originate, much less likely to be delivered and would = make=20 so-called “spam lists” largely worthless.

 

Frank=20 McCoy

 --=_A2FC3031.12731C81-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 20:26:26 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 UAA18732 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Zd-0003Ph-Kx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9U1Q58o013115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Zc-0003Nx-3J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18695 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:25:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1ZZ-00022X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1ZZ-00022U-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1ZZ-0003Ld-Ti; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1Yg-0003H6-4x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:25:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18667 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1Yd-000222-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:25:03 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1Yd-00021Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:25:03 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-172.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.140.233]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNJ009XTQKCVF@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:24:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: To: Frank McCoy Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA06839.3080108@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Source Tracking and Authentication idea (was Re: [Asrg] Source Tracking and Authentication 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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:24:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Frank McCoy wrote: >=20 >=20 > This may be an idea that has already been proposed. If so, sorry f= or=20 > the duplication. I've long been of the opinion that spam can be re= duced=20 > significantly by denying spammers the use of forged domain identiti= es. =20 > I believe this idea will go a long way toward that goal without add= ing=20 > much data overhead to typical mail transactions between mail server= s or=20 > clients. I would appreciate an expert critique. >=20 > The objective of this strategy is to reduce or eliminate emails acc= epted=20 > for delivery to an electronic mail user which originate from a=20 > fraudulent sender identity. In turn, attribution of unsolicited em= ails=20 > to a valid email sender identity facilitates enforcement of policie= s to=20 > forbid or control the sending of unsolicited emails to third partie= s.=20 >=20 > In essence, this strategy is comprised of two complementary modules= of=20 > code. One set of instructions is a part of the recipient=92s email= =20 > system, implemented as part of the recipient=92s Post Office Protoc= ol=20 > server or as part of the email user=92s Reader or Client Browser so= ftware.=20 > The other set of instructions resides on a computer designated by = the=20 > Administrator of the particular sending email Domain as the Email D= omain=20 > Authenticator (hereinafter =93EDA=94).=20 >=20 > The EDA would, for each email client or group of clients, periodica= lly=20 > generate a short group of randomly-chosen letters or numbers=20 > (hereinafter =93Authenticator String=94 or =93AS=94). A record wou= ld be kept of=20 > past AS values and the periods of time during which they were valid= . >=20 > When an email user sends an email, the user=92s Browser would query= the=20 > EDA and ascertain the currently valid AS value. This value would b= e=20 > inserted into the email Header along with the EDA's time stamp for= =20 > delivery along with the text content of the email. >=20 > Upon receipt of the email by a POP or Browser, the AS value time st= amp=20 > are sent to the EDA of the originating email Domain and parsed agai= nst=20 > the EDA's history of valid AS and timestamp values. If these value= s=20 > agree, the EDA replies with a statement of =93true=94 and if not th= e EDA=20 > replies with a statement of =93false.=94 The EDA hostname would ha= ve to be=20 > provided by DNS and would, as such, be subject to traditional DNS= =20 > security and authenticity. An EDA type record would have to be add= ed to=20 > the other host types now recognized for DNS. An AS or mail message= =20 > without a domain name or that refers to a dotted quad or other dire= ct IP=20 > address for AS verification must automatically fail authentication = at=20 > the POP server. >=20 > Access to the EDA to obtain a valid AS could be secured in a variet= y of=20 > ways, such as by limiting the numerical addresses to a particular r= ange=20 > (IP address range), by username and password or by secure transacti= on=20 > protocols. These strategies are already well known and widely impl= emented. >=20 > Access to the EDA for AS validation (to obtain a =93true=94 or = =93false=94 as=20 > previously described) should be public and unrestricted. AS values= will=20 > become compromised, such as by the forwarding of email by others, b= ut=20 > will remain valid for a finite period of time determined by the ema= il=20 > domain Administrator. This valid period might reasonably be measur= ed in=20 > hours or days. Thus, there is little advantage to gaining access t= o the=20 > AS. Unless it is used quickly, it will be invalid.=20 >=20 > Finally, this can be implemented slowly across the Internet, as the= user=20 > may determine how a failed AS is handled. >=20 > So-called =93spam=94 can be controlled by the previously described = strategy=20 > in a variety of ways. Presuming a malicious email user (=93spammer= =94)=20 > seeks to send email to a list of email addressees and presuming the= =20 > recipients employ the previously described AS strategy:=20 >=20 > 1. email originating from nonexistent domains will fail the AS > validation, as there will be no EAD to reply > 2. email originating from nonexistent user names within legitima= te > domains will fail, as the EAD will reply =93false=94 > 3. emails originating from falsified user names (users with vali= d > accounts within legitimate email domains whose email identiti= es > have been gathered by a spammer for this purpose) and bearing > compromised valid AS values, will only be effective for a lim= ited > time. Thereafter, the EAD will reply =93false=94 to the expi= red AS.=20 > Spam lists would have very short lives. > 4. Administrators may elect to set limits on the number of AS > validations returned as =93true=94 for a particular email acc= ount > within a particular time period. Thus a spammer could not ma= ke > use of a legitimate email account acquired for the sole purpo= se of > providing AS authentication, such as from hotmail.com. > 5. The administrators of hotmail.com and other free email servic= es > should additionally create a limit on the number of account > creation requests that are accepted from any particular IP ad= dress > over a given period of time, perhaps, and independently valid= ate > the IP addresses given by the requesting client host. For th= is > exploit, the number of spam emails would be the product of th= e > number of free addresses registered times the limit of permit= ted > AS validations per email account per unit time. Alternativel= y, > the hotmail administrators could adopt a very short =93time t= o live=94 > (TTL) for AS values. > 6. ISPs might find it necessary to limit the number of MAC addre= sses > that a particular subscriber can register, as this might allo= w a > subscriber to manually change the MAC, then re-login and get = a > different IP address, thus bypassing #5. In any event, the t= otal > number of spams that can be sent is the product of the number= from > 6 times the number from 5 times the number from 4 and is subj= ect > to the expiration of the AS values because of the passage of = time > and the reporting of the email addresses as sources of spam, > resulting in shutdown. > 7. In any event, spam could only originate from valid domains an= d > from identified user identities within those domains. This = would > make such emails much more difficult to originate, much less > likely to be delivered and would make so-called =93spam lists= =94 > largely worthless.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Frank McCoy >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 20:43:25 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 UAA19468 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1q5-0005Tb-Hj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9U1h5IE021045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1q5-0005TM-Cr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19446 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1q3-0002Il-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1q2-0002Ih-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1q1-0005RF-AZ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF1p1-0005Of-Pd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:42:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19416 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1oz-0002Hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:41:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF1oy-0002Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:41:57 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-172.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.140.233]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNJ009HERCVKY@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:41:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Source Tracking and Authentication idea (was Re: [Asrg] Source Tracking and Authentication idea) In-reply-to: <3FA06839.3080108@solidmatrix.com> To: Frank McCoy Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA06C3B.5060807@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <3FA06839.3080108@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:41:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] > > Frank McCoy wrote: > >> >> >> This may be an idea that has already been proposed. If so, sorry for >> the duplication. I've long been of the opinion that spam can be >> reduced significantly by denying spammers the use of forged domain >> identities. I believe this idea will go a long way toward that goal >> without adding much data overhead to typical mail transactions between >> mail servers or clients. I would appreciate an expert critique. >> >> The objective of this strategy is to reduce or eliminate emails >> accepted for delivery to an electronic mail user which originate from >> a fraudulent sender identity. In turn, attribution of unsolicited >> emails to a valid email sender identity facilitates enforcement of >> policies to forbid or control the sending of unsolicited emails to >> third parties. Many RMX-type proposals are geared towards the same goal and accomplish it with less trouble. See: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Oct 29 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 WAA22668 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF3Ox-00069O-Ej for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9U3NB5h023636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF3Ox-000699-91 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22655 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF3Ou-0003aN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF3Ot-0003aK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF3On-00066G-Gk; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF3OV-00065Q-Ak for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22647 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF3OR-0003a9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:40 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF3OR-0003Zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:39 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-393.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.169.1]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNJ003B1W0UGD@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:22:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FA083DB.9060609@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - New Draft Posted (v0.03) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Oct 2003 22:22:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A new draft (v0.03) of the consent framework has been posted online. It can be found at the following location: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html Most of the document has been rewritten to make things easier to understand and a diagram has been added. Questions, suggestions and comments are welcome, please post them directly to the ASRG list. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 30 18:36:30 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 SAA20606 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMKq-0001gG-6w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9UNaC6T006438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMKq-0001fl-16 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20576 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMKm-0004l3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMKm-0004kd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:36:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMHk-00016L-VK; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:33:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMHP-00014O-0C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20451 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMHK-0004hu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:34 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMHH-0004hm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:31 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 8E6C818041; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:29:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <008901c39f3e$1d7e6fc0$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 V6.00.2800.1165 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: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I understand. But "end to end" issues are very different > from network abuse issues. Preventing network abuse isn't > censorship. Preventing forgery of my domain in spam isn't > censorship (and yes, it happens a fair bit.) > > The RMX-style solutions allow recipients to make ISP's > accountable for their network traffic. They don't affect > end-user accountability, privacy, or authentication. I agree. RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from getting spoofed. By no means is it an anti-spam method. I can not simply implement a force-RMX-check implementation in my mail server anymore that I can perform a force-reverse-DNS check or force-HELO-check. There is simply too much email from valid senders with pathetic mail administrators. However, I can perform an RMX check and if the domain is protected by RMX..I can ensure that the sending source is from a listed IP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Oct 30 19:10:55 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 TAA21625 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMs7-000638-Tm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9V0AZfS023248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMs7-00062t-Kh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21608 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMs4-0005EC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMs3-0005E9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMrZ-0005sG-Sy; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFMqn-0005mq-Kl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21564 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:09:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMqk-0005Ct-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:09:10 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFMqj-0005Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:09:09 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9V098Dx006019; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:09:08 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111319F@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric Dean'" , "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:09:05 -0800 > I agree. RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from > getting spoofed. By no means is it an anti-spam method. RMX and SPF do not prevent all spam but they do have the potential to eliminate impersonation spam (aka Joe Jobbing). This type of spam is particularly serious because it has been used in a series of very successful identity theft schemes. These include the persistent 'update your ebay/amazon/paypal account solicitations and recently a series of emails impersonating several banks. Impersonation spam creates considerable inconvenience and cost for the impersonation victim. In addition to the cost of fielding complaints about the spam the victim's reputation is damaged. In many cases the impersonator may steal business from the victim (anti-virus software spam, domain name registration spam). It is not unusual for a spam to be correct in every detail except for the telephone number to contact to give payment. Certainly it is possible and useful to go further than IP address/Domain Name verification of the type supported in RMX/SPF. But this does invalidate RMX/SPF infrastructure as a first step. Nor is it tenable to claim that RMX/SPF are insufficient and then claim that certificate based schemes are unnecessary. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 31 10:21:32 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 KAA03129 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFb5P-0002na-6O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VFLFVq010750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFb5O-0002nJ-Hb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03121 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFb5M-0001cS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFb5L-0001cP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:21:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFb3E-0002VD-UD; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFb2R-0002QN-OG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:18:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02998 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFb2H-0001a2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:18:01 -0500 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFb2G-0001ZZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:18:00 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (mail.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9VFHY8N035762 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:17:35 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.12.74]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003103113232402:124 ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:23:24 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031031131301.01d22868@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 31/10/2003 13:23:25, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 31/10/2003 13:23:27, Serialize complete at 31/10/2003 13:23:27 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, 31 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0200 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38051-2003Oct29.html Microsoft Corp., America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink Inc. -- the top Internet provider and e-mail account companies that joined together to work on the problem last spring -- are close to an announcement on a "trusted sender" system. ---------------------- Anybody knows already more about it? How, if, does that affect the ASRG and IETF work? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 31 10:27:45 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 KAA03305 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbBP-0003R1-Aq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VFRRl1013109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbBO-0003PK-JW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03291 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbBM-0001gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbBL-0001gp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbAz-0003HM-SN; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbAg-0003FU-9i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:26:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03256 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbAd-0001g6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:26:39 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbAd-0001g3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:26:39 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id A93B118081; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:23:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <011501c39fc3$67b80c60$6501a8c0@sohonotebook> 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 V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111319F@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:26:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Agreed..the most annoying spam is when they impersonate myself 8-) > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:09 PM > To: 'Eric Dean'; 'Alan DeKok'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] > 0. General) > > > > I agree. RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from > > getting spoofed. By no means is it an anti-spam method. > > RMX and SPF do not prevent all spam but they do have the > potential to eliminate impersonation spam (aka Joe Jobbing). > This type of spam is particularly serious because it has been > used in a series of very successful identity theft schemes. > These include the persistent 'update your ebay/amazon/paypal > account solicitations and recently a series of emails > impersonating several banks. > > Impersonation spam creates considerable inconvenience and > cost for the impersonation victim. In addition to the cost of > fielding complaints about the spam the victim's reputation is > damaged. In many cases the impersonator may steal business > from the victim (anti-virus software spam, domain name > registration spam). It is not unusual for a spam to be > correct in every detail except for the telephone number to > contact to give payment. > > > Certainly it is possible and useful to go further than IP > address/Domain Name verification of the type supported in > RMX/SPF. But this does invalidate RMX/SPF infrastructure as a > first step. Nor is it tenable to claim that RMX/SPF are > insufficient and then claim that certificate based schemes > are unnecessary. > > > > Phill > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 31 10:29:20 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 KAA03379 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbCx-0003ax-Dl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VFT3WW013813 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbCx-0003ai-8h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03348 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbCu-0001iF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbCu-0001iC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbCv-0003YM-6c; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbCh-0003Wu-MP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:28:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03336 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbCf-0001hs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:28:45 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbCe-0001hV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:28:44 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.153] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id AF4C8650034; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:08 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: Subject: RE: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcOfwo3r2/19oCUaRgm8VP1NAtLdaAAAGI0g In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031031131301.01d22868@mail.uniwares.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-Id: <200310311027683.SM00176@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (140836916) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (140836916) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:27:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am not sure if this has any direct link to that but there is a web site @ ms research http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/pennyblack/ That folks should bookmark It lists some folks who might know what the AOL - MS - Earthlink deal is. Hope that helps .... Denny > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andreas Saurwein > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:15 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38051-2003Oct29.html > > Microsoft Corp., America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink > Inc. -- the top Internet provider and e-mail account > companies that joined together to work on the problem last > spring -- are close to an announcement on a "trusted sender" system. > > ---------------------- > > Anybody knows already more about it? How, if, does that > affect the ASRG and IETF work? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 31 10:56:57 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 KAA04764 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbdf-0006gk-Cj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VFudEj025704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbdf-0006gV-24 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04739 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbdc-0002CO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbdc-0002CL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbd4-0006Xr-K4; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFbcW-0006U4-0Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:55:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04712 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbcO-0002Bq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:55:20 -0500 Received: from mtaw6.prodigy.net ([64.164.98.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFbcO-0002Bi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:55:20 -0500 Received: from annie (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mtaw6.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9VFsom0015484 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:54:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe Message-ID: <3FA2154F.4907.1435BC92@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20031031131301.01d22868@mail.uniwares.com> 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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:54:55 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Microsoft Corp., America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink Inc. -- the > top Internet provider and e-mail account companies that joined > together to work on the problem last spring -- are close to an > announcement on a "trusted sender" system. > > > ---------------------- > > Anybody knows already more about it? I know this: I know that my contact within MSN was one of the few ISPs I approached about betaing EDAPP who said that they were interested, but could not, because it was too close to what they were about to announce. You can read about EDAPP at the link below, and see if that helps. (You can also sign up beta test as a sender or receiver, which is free :-)) http://www.edeliverability.com/edapp.php Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. President/CEO Institute for Spam & Internet Public Policy Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 31 11:51:29 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 LAA07826 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFcUR-0004MD-34 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VGpBbW016743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFcUQ-0004Ly-VV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07811 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFcUP-0003DK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFcUP-0003DH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFcUH-0004JB-Oo; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFcTm-0004Fx-0R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:50:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07785 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFcTk-0003Cd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:50:28 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFcTk-0003CZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:50:28 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id h9VGoQbW009318; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:50:26 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131A1@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'denny@figuerres.com'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe 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, 31 Oct 2003 08:50:25 -0800 Mark Menasse has been working on micropayment schemes for a long time now. He was working on Millicent a while back. Adam Back, the hashcash guy is also at Microsoft research. Micropayment schemes do have potential, provided you do not try to actually transfer or collect the cash and you do not make it your only defense. If you are C|Net or the like sending out millions of emails a day there is no micropayment scheme that is going to cost you anything short of millions. In contrast you can join even the most expensive trusted/bondage sender accreditation programs for 50 grand or so. A digital certificate with some sort of authentication to back it up costs $300 to $1000 depending on application, I don't think that accreditation schemes run in bulk should be much more expensive. The economics are more favorable for the small sender. If there is going to be a meaningful authentication process then there will be a cost. If the certificate is cheap and easily replaced then it is unlikely to be a deterent. Trusted sender programs, especially voluntary non profit ones are currently orders of magnitude more expensive than certificates. The bottom line is that there is a good chance that a micropayment scheme that traded some sort of finite or cost bounded resource for the right to send email can provide value here. One approach is to use CPU cycles. Another is the velocity indicator attribute I proposed for a hardware signing device [obs disclosure, there is a pending patent application]. CPU cycles has the advantage of being easy to deploy but has the disadvantage of facing Moore's law. The velocity indicator requires a hardware device but there is no reason these should cost more than $20. The problem is that they also cannot really cost less, unless that is the technology is bundled in with some other device (cable modem, processor, motherboard) in which case the technology becomes a negligible increase in the cost of item but it is still uneconomic for a spammer to buy hundreds of PCs just to exhaust the velocity indicator capacity on each one... Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 31 12:52:37 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 MAA10439 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdRZ-0004Fv-29 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VHqHZd016353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdRY-0004Fg-R7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10401 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdRX-0004BD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdRW-0004BA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdRI-0004AE-Pw; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdQN-0003zy-0B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:51:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10357 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdQL-0004A5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:51:01 -0500 Received: from [131.107.8.3] (helo=exchange.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdQK-00049f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:51:00 -0500 Received: from DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.4.14]) by exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:50:30 -0800 Received: from 10.197.0.83 by DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:50:30 -0800 Received: from DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.0.104]) by DF-BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:50:30 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7112.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 4: solution taxonomy; was: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) Message-ID: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB0401162529@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: 4: solution taxonomy; was: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) thread-index: AcOfQ2IhWOQHLiYPQweHQ7FuWxLZqgAkBRhQ From: "Bob Atkinson" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Eric Dean" , "Alan DeKok" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2003 17:50:30.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[7978F0E0:01C39FD7] 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, 31 Oct 2003 09:50:29 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Indeed. Myself, I look at it this way. RMX and things like it are a minimal *authentication* step that can give you reasonable that the mail is from the domain it says it's from. This is very valuable, but is indeed only a piece of the picture. Beyond that I think we need ways for you to provide in the mail that you send positive evidence that the mail isn't spam (having the evidence flow with the original message at the get-go means the existing mail delivery experience is preserved). When all is said and done, I only know of two basic ways to do this: 1. Get someone whose opinion your recipient values to say you are=20 a good guy. 2. Do something that it's uneconomical for a spammer to do, and show that you did that. The first of these amounts to trading on your reputation; the latter amounts to expending some resource on behalf of the message (money, CPU cycles, and so on, though lack of a viable micro-payment scheme makes using the first of these difficult). While not one and the same thing, the authentication and the spam deterrence measures are related. For example, domains and their owners have reputations: thus, to the extent you can attribute a message to a domain, you can ask questions about the reputation of / policies associated with the domain, which is likely to be a very interesting question. Similarly, if you have an authenticated piece of mail (perhaps it's signed) you can reasonably then ask policies about the particular sender of the message. I think it's also worth noting that the two fundamental approaches above are likely to serve quite different audiences. More likely that not, it's only the larger organizations / domains which will have sufficient reputation so that their mail transmission policies can be evaluated and monitored and sufficient money to pay for that evaluation. All those small businesses, personal mail servers and other small domains out there realistically won't be able to participate. On the other hand, it's a happy coincidence that the situation is exactly reversed when it comes to the availability of spare CPU cycles: the people who send volumes and volumes of mail generally run their machines to the hilt. After all, if they have such volume, they have to budget and capacity plan the thing, and they don't tend to build in huge extra capacity that they don't actually need. On the other hand, the machines running the small domains are by and large highly idle, with plenty of spare cycles. I think it's important that as the industry picks spam deterrence measures that we don't end up making 1st and 2nd class senders. No one mechanism will be usable by all senders, yet all receivers need to value all the mechanisms. Bob -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:09 PM To: 'Eric Dean'; 'Alan DeKok'; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) > I agree. RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from > getting spoofed. By no means is it an anti-spam method. =20 RMX and SPF do not prevent all spam but they do have the potential to eliminate impersonation spam (aka Joe Jobbing). This type of spam is particularly serious because it has been used in a series of very successful identity theft schemes. These include the persistent 'update your ebay/amazon/paypal account solicitations and recently a series of emails impersonating several banks. Impersonation spam creates considerable inconvenience and cost for the impersonation victim. In addition to the cost of fielding complaints about the spam the victim's reputation is damaged. In many cases the impersonator may steal business from the victim (anti-virus software spam, domain name registration spam). It is not unusual for a spam to be correct in every detail except for the telephone number to contact to give payment. Certainly it is possible and useful to go further than IP address/Domain Name verification of the type supported in RMX/SPF. But this does invalidate RMX/SPF infrastructure as a first step. Nor is it tenable to claim that RMX/SPF are insufficient and then claim that certificate based schemes are unnecessary. Phill _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 31 12:54:20 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 MAA10493 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdTG-0004U9-SP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VHs2f5017235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdTG-0004Tu-NI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10482 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdTF-0004Cf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdTE-0004Cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdTF-0004Rm-4A; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFdSu-0004Pw-5q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:53:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10478 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:53:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdSs-0004CW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:53:38 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFdSs-0004CN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:53:38 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-443.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.180.224]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNM003NZUYI9R@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:51:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - News Article - Trusted Sender Programe In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20031031131301.01d22868@mail.uniwares.com> To: Andreas Saurwein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA2A139.1080705@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031031131301.01d22868@mail.uniwares.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:51:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Andreas Saurwein wrote: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38051-2003Oct29.html > > Microsoft Corp., America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink Inc. -- the > top Internet provider and e-mail account companies that joined together > to work on the problem last spring -- are close to an announcement on a > "trusted sender" system. > > ---------------------- > > Anybody knows already more about it? How, if, does that affect the ASRG > and IETF work? Microsoft has been discretely approaching members of the anti-spam community for feedback on some initiatives. Unfortunatly, these required a NDA so nobody is talking. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Oct 31 14:44:36 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 OAA15605 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFfBw-00086Q-8m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9VJiGQ3031142 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFfBw-00086D-4x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15599 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFfBt-00060D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFfBt-00060A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFfBh-00083V-Ac; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFfB7-00080K-RB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15588 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFfB5-000600-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:23 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFfB4-0005zx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:22 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8B6011F001; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Brad Knowles Cc: Asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General Message-ID: <20031031194640.GT11605@mail> References: <000001c39802$d4f553f0$19602241@viper1> <20031022035117.GF74735@Space.Net> <20031022040943.GL11687@gamerz.net> <20031022200726.GE16254@mail> <20031023171814.GM16254@mail> <20031027222706.GG11605@mail> 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, 31 Oct 2003 14:46:40 -0500 > At 5:27 PM -0500 2003/10/27, David Maxwell wrote: > > > A DNS server being compromisable is an implementation flaw, not an > > infrastructural one. It's also more difficult than forging an email > > address is today, thereby raising the bar for spammers. > > No more difficult than writing a virus to compromise millions of > PCs world-wide and make them available to you as open proxy servers. You didn't respond to my comment. I said A > B. You said B !> C. > >> Of course, another issue with open caching/recursive servers is > >> that you can get anyone in the world to effectively host your domain > >> for you, and combined with wildcards they could appear to be hosts > >> for virtually all domains on the Internet. > > > > I don't understand your example. > > Then you don't understand enough about DNS security issues to be > able to pass judgement on these matters. No, you simply weren't clear enough about your example. I can't use the argument "it isn't" to accuse you of naivety in matters of foreign currency exchange, and you can't conclude anything about my understanding of DNS security issues with a comment like the above. > > Right, it's raising the bar, and it's also enabling other tools. > > It's not raising the bar. It's moving the bar, but merely > horizontally. You're not improving the situation. Moreover, because > you're moving the bar into territory where many admins have much less > knowledge and experience, in many ways you're making the situation > worse than it was before. Saying that 'things will be different, and people will have to adapt' is not a reason by itself to not make a change, otherwise no changes could ever be made. It raising the bar - it will allow detection/rejection of a particular class of abuse - including the forgeries from well known sites, such as paypal and ebay. For the below, you clipped a critical line of context from my reply, so I'm re-inserting it: > > (All the following is with the exception of point-to-point user > > verification, such as PGP signed messages.) > > Without (verified) domain names, you can't have verified email > > addresses. > Not true. Care to back that up with an explaination? The only one I see is the cryptographic solution (which I mentioned as an exception, though you clipped it). Cryptographic solutions have keying issues, which gives solutions not dependent on crypto certain advantages, particularly in implementation. > > Without (verified) email addresses, you can't have reliable user based > > whitelists. > Not true. Care to back that up with an explaination? Simply negating my statements does not contribute to the discussion. > > I believe that for many users, a short whitelist would be a highly > > practical solution to the spam problem. It wouldn't be for myself, > > personally - but for my mother, and my aunts... > > It wouldn't be useful for anyone who doesn't understand the > details of the technical implementation, and who doesn't know what > the potential failure modes are and what to do about them. What? Please explain how my mother would need to understand the technical implementation in order to be able to say "I accept mail from a@b.com, and c@d.com, period." > In other words, the people it would be least useful for would be > your mother or your aunts. > > > Any white or black listing proposal which doesn't address the need for > > authentication of the list compared data may be worked around. > > Anything which causes the trust boundary to be crossed can (and > will) be gamed. This is where joe-jobs come from. Authentication > methods won't change this fact, unless they are based on a secure > protocol which uses strong crypto at the core -- which means that > they cannot possibly be implemented through the DNS. You're talking in absolutes, but I think there's a range of gray area here. In my view, joe-jobs come from the protocol accepting 'MAIL FROM:' (or HELO, or the message header) on faith, and performing no checks on it whatsoever. Sure, adding checks which aren't cryptographically strong means that people will try to work around the checks, but it would still be better than no checks. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't do _anything_ if it isn't perfect. Since no solution will ever be perfect by everyone's definition, they we will never to anything. Come to think of it, I've never seen you mention what spam solutions you think are beneficial - only interfere with discussions of solutions you don't like. What solutions do you like? David _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg