From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 1 15:16:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14746 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:16:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG2AD-0006gN-QI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:16:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA1KG1Ig025683 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG2AD-0006g0-64 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:16:01 -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 PAA14707 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:15:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG2AB-00054X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:16:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG2AB-00054T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:15:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG29G-0006c4-C9; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG28z-0006bc-0k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:14:45 -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 PAA14585 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG28x-00052f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:14:43 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-3-058-249.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.3.58.249] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG28v-000528-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:14:42 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hA1KE4H25876 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:14:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031101201404.ZM25875@candle.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] 7. Best Current Practices - Mail to verizon.net Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:14:04 +0000 Status: O Normally I'd send this sort of thing only to the list admins, but as this list is for discussion of anti-spam practices ... I've been trying to figure out why I haven't received any mail from the ASRG list in a couple of days, despite new things showing up in the archives. So I took a look at the mail logs and queue at my MX host (which forwards my brasslantern.com address to my verizon DSL mailbox). I don't know why, but "MAIL FROM:" is rejected by verizon's MXs with "450 Requested mail action not taken-Try later". I'm receiving mail from other IETF lists (ietf-sasl, ietf-822, etc.) and from other correspondents, so it's something specific to the ASRG list that verizon objects to. Looking through the mail queue, other messages that verizon is rejecting with "Try later" are clearly spam. I'll be contacting verizon support. Obviously you should CC: me on any discussion of this in the short term. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 1 21:38:02 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 VAA22160 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG87d-0007Fd-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:37:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA22bifx027865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:37:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG87c-0007F7-Bp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:37:44 -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 VAA22142 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:37:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG87Z-0000Wb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:37:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG87Z-0000WY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:37:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG86u-0006we-Q3; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AG86n-0006wC-UF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:36:54 -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 VAA22137 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AG86l-0000WP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:36:51 -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 1AG86k-0000WI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 21:36:50 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-367-246.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.148.251]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNP00BRVDWBGK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 02:36:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FA46D98.30406@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] 1. Inventory of Problems - Related Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 01 Nov 2003 21:36:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Here is a link that is relevant to the inventory of problems document: http://www.imc.org/ube-def.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 2 20:18:48 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 UAA02316 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTMP-0005WJ-MO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA31IPZT021213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTMP-0005W4-HS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:25 -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 UAA02301 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTMN-0005RV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTMN-0005RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTM1-0005RJ-Op; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTL5-0005Pt-6E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:03 -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 UAA02273 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTL2-0005Qi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:01 -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 1AGTL2-0005QX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-225.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.184]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNR00JZW4STPC@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:15:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. Best Current Practices - Mail to verizon.net In-reply-to: <1031101201404.ZM25875@candle.brasslantern.com> To: Bart Schaefer Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA5AC06.90700@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: <1031101201404.ZM25875@candle.brasslantern.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, 02 Nov 2003 20:14:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bart Schaefer wrote: > Normally I'd send this sort of thing only to the list admins, but as this > list is for discussion of anti-spam practices ... > > I've been trying to figure out why I haven't received any mail from the > ASRG list in a couple of days, despite new things showing up in the > archives. So I took a look at the mail logs and queue at my MX host > (which forwards my brasslantern.com address to my verizon DSL mailbox). > I don't know why, but "MAIL FROM:" is rejected by > verizon's MXs with "450 Requested mail action not taken-Try later". > > I'm receiving mail from other IETF lists (ietf-sasl, ietf-822, etc.) and > from other correspondents, so it's something specific to the ASRG list > that verizon objects to. Looking through the mail queue, other messages > that verizon is rejecting with "Try later" are clearly spam. > > I'll be contacting verizon support. Obviously you should CC: me on any > discussion of this in the short term. > Unlike other ietf.org lists, the ASRG list is exempt from all anti-spam rules. Thus, when exchanging spam samples or spam information, anti-spam software thinks that the ASRG list spews spam. This has caused occasional problems with specific subscribers, but most of this stuff stays behind the scenes. Additionally, recently the IETF switched machines with a new mail server not having a proper rDNS entry. This has also caused problem for some subscribers. Its kind of ironic that messages from an anti-spam list are rejected by a spam filter... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 2 20:18:52 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 UAA02332 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTMP-0005WZ-SQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA31IPXZ021229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTMP-0005WK-NO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:25 -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 UAA02304 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:18:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTMN-0005RZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTMN-0005RQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTM2-0005RR-6C; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGTL5-0005Pu-8m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:03 -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 UAA02276 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGTL3-0005Ql-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:01 -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 1AGTL2-0005QX-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:17:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-225.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.184]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNR00BII4VY2B@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:16:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 4: solution taxonomy; was: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg] 0. General) In-reply-to: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB0401162529@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> To: Bob Atkinson Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Eric Dean , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA5AC7B.80800@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: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB0401162529@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.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, 02 Nov 2003 20:16:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O All of these discussions point back to the consent framework. We need to evaluate whether it is viable to have an infrastructure or architecture in place that can tie in all existing and future anti-spam tools and methods. If it is indeed possible, then each receiver and his or her organization will pick and choose as to what type of tools to use. Yakov Bob Atkinson wrote: > 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 > 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. > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 3 00:55:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08057 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXfu-0006Vv-Hi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA35so5H025024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXfu-0006VW-9w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -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 AAA08040 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:54:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXfr-0000Rt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXfr-0000Rn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXf7-0006GZ-9j; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXeH-0006G7-AZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:53:09 -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 AAA07992 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXeE-0000Qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:53:06 -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 1AGXeE-0000QI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:53:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-225.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.184]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNR003ITHIXHR@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:49:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FA5EC73.7020504@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: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:49:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O 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 Nov 3 01:45:02 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 AAA08058 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXfu-0006Vu-HQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA35soft025017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXfu-0006VQ-5P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:50 -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 AAA08037 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:54:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXfr-0000Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXfq-0000Rm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXf6-0006GR-SU; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGXeA-0006G1-Uy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:53:03 -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 AAA07988 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGXe8-0000Qa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:53:00 -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 1AGXe7-0000QG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:52:59 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-225.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.184]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNR00L81HNELO@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:52:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA5ED14.7020100@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 - Call for Volunteers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:52:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Dear Group Members, The group currently has a shortage of volunteers to take care of various tasks. A lot of items on the research agenda (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm) and the work item list (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm) need people to take care of them. If you would like to contribute some of you time please let the group know on the list, or email the chairs off-list. Any time and help you can give would be great. Additionally, we would like to bring to your attention that three of the foundational documents - the requirements document, the technical considerations document and the consent framework need comments and review. Please do not hesitate to participate in on-list discussions about these documents, or contact us off-list. Current drafts can be found at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/7/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html Any other suggestions for the group would be appreciated, please either post them to the list or email the chairs off-list. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 3 02:22:47 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 CAA22449 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 02:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGZ2g-0002yT-RI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:22:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA37MQWC011421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 02:22:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGZ2g-0002y2-CY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:22:26 -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 CAA22440 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 02:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGZ2c-0001Hw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:22:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGZ2c-0001Ht-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:22:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGZ2J-0002un-9F; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:22:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGZ1X-0002ss-IT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:21:15 -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 CAA22380 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 02:21:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGZ1T-0001Ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:21:11 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.129]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGZ1T-0001Hl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:21:11 -0500 Received: from CPE-24-163-156-9.kc.rr.com (CPE-24-163-156-9.kc.rr.com [24.163.156.9]) by ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hA37L6nd006554 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:21:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX -- After reading the archive From: david nicol To: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <3F9EBE05.80101@solidmatrix.com> References: <3F9EBE05.80101@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1067844065.1358.31.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: 03 Nov 2003 01:21:06 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Well that was a fun thing to scan. I was not able to find my "pet issues" addressed within the subjects of the nearly 250 archived e-mails, nor any reference made to the I-D-formatted document I posted links to in early october. Here's what I have to say: 1: No new DNS records! Proposals should restrict themselves to A records, MX records, PTR records, and (optionally, only!) TXT records. Otherwise, no matter how beautiful they look on paper, they won't happen. 2: Recognize that all proposals have in common that they list a set of network addresses under a name of some kind, under a domain name that can be used as an administrative border. 3: Separate (1) the mechanics of listing from (2) the semantics of what is listed and (3) when the list is to be consulted. These three are separate issues. The first is entirely separable from the second two, the second two are intertwined, the third being the intention of the second. I offered a declaration of a best practice for implementing a list of machines, and got little criticism of it. I also got no response from the RFC editor, presumably since the space the proposal is in is well within DeKok's group, which I was not invited to participate in. On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:05, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > 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 -- 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 Mon Nov 3 13:43:46 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 NAA14131 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGjfh-0006fz-7R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA3IhPEh025657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGjfh-0006fk-1x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:25 -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 NAA14118 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGjfe-0002JY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGjfe-0002JT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGjfK-0006d4-3p; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:43:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGjf7-0006cV-Ph for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:42:49 -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 NAA14102 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGjf5-0002J3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:42:47 -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 1AGjf5-0002J0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:42:47 -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 1AGjgY-0003XU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:44:18 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX -- After reading the archive In-Reply-To: Your message of "03 Nov 2003 01:21:06 CST." <1067844065.1358.31.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:44:17 -0500 Status: O david nicol wrote: > I was not able to find my "pet issues" addressed within the > subjects of the nearly 250 archived e-mails, nor any reference > made to the I-D-formatted document I posted links to in early october. My wife spent a most of week in the hospital in early October, and I'm just catching up with work. I have your draft in my inbox, and will respond privately. > 1: No new DNS records! Proposals should restrict themselves > to A records, MX records, PTR records, and (optionally, only!) > TXT records. Otherwise, no matter how beautiful they look on > paper, they won't happen. That's pretty much the consensus of the group. > 2: Recognize that all proposals have in common that they list > a set of network addresses under a name of some kind, under > a domain name that can be used as an administrative border. That's also pretty much the consensus of the group. > 3: Separate (1) the mechanics of listing from (2) the semantics of what > is listed and (3) when the list is to be consulted. These three > are separate issues. The first is entirely separable from the > second two, the second two are intertwined, the third being the > intention of the second. I'm not sure what you mean by that, or what changes you would suggest making to the documents. > I offered a declaration of a best practice for implementing a > list of machines, and got little criticism of it. Please understand this: No one is required to read or comment on anything in ASRG. It's strictly volunteer. > I also got no response from the RFC editor, presumably since the > space the proposal is in is well within DeKok's group, which I was > not invited to participate in. The RFC editor does not respond to individual proposals. It's not "DeKok's" group, it's "ASRG-RMX". Please use the correct name, to keep the discussion professional. You were not invited to participate because almost no one was invited to participate. The requirements for participation were made clear in the original post announcing the creation of the sub-group. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 3 16:02:49 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 QAA21328 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGlqG-0006Ld-TF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:02:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA3L2SwS024395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:02:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGlqG-0006LO-OR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:02:28 -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 QAA21296 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGlq2-0004Wo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:02:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGlq2-0004Wl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:02:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGlpq-0006IC-6N; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AGlpK-0006H5-4l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:01:30 -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 QAA21247 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AGlpI-0004Vr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:01:28 -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 1AGlpI-0004Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:01:28 -0500 Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AGlqs-0003bp-00; Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:03:06 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Nov 2003 16:03:06 -0500 Status: O I've posted the first draft of the ASRG-RMX discussion paper on the combined proposal to the ASRG-RMX list. It's available on gmane, at: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx/260 I do not currently have sufficient time to discuss or defend the document. If there are errors of fact, please email me with references, and suggested replacement text. Any flames will be archived for later amusement. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 5 17:29:45 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 RAA27441 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:29:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHW9Y-0002r1-Rl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:29:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA5MTS9p010965 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:29:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHW9Y-0002qm-MM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:29:28 -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 RAA27422 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHW9W-0004l9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:29:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHW9V-0004l5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:29:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHW97-0002mp-Hc; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHW8q-0002lF-1y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:28:44 -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 RAA27412 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHW8n-0004kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:28:41 -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 1AHW8n-0004ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:28:41 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-085.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.44]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNW00ED1GYF2D@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:25:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper In-reply-to: To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FA978D0.1030901@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, 05 Nov 2003 17:25:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Alan DeKok wrote: > I've posted the first draft of the ASRG-RMX discussion paper on the > combined proposal to the ASRG-RMX list. It's available on gmane, at: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx/260 > > I do not currently have sufficient time to discuss or defend the > document. If there are errors of fact, please email me with > references, and suggested replacement text. > > Any flames will be archived for later amusement. > The following URL is relevant to this: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 5 17:58:26 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 RAA28518 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHWbK-0005EF-Bn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:58:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA5MwA8e020093 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:58:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHWbK-0005E0-6h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:58:10 -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 RAA28507 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:57:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHWbH-0005ET-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHWbH-0005EO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:58:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHWbB-0005A5-1d; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHWb0-00059r-8x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:57:50 -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 RAA28492 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHWax-0005Dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:57:47 -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 1AHWax-0005Dd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:57:47 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-085.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.44]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNW00KWSIFC30@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:57:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FA98047.4080904@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] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input 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: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:57:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O The inventory of problems document outlines the various problems that cause spam and are caused by spam. The last known draft is available at: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-inventory-of-problems.txt Additionally, the technical considerations document discusses different points of control in the email infrastructure and the consent framework looks at some of the consent issues in the email infrastructure. These documents can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html We are seeking additional input on this document and more volunteers to help out with it. Please post comments to the list directly or contact us off-list. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 5 19:32:45 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 TAA02978 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:32:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHY4b-0002OL-0v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA60WSoW009187 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:32:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHY4a-0002O6-TI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:28 -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 TAA02970 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHY4Z-0006Zs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHY4Y-0006Zp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHY4A-0002K5-BL; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHY44-0002Jo-0g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:31:56 -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 TAA02955 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHY42-0006ZL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:31:54 -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 1AHY41-0006Z2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:31:53 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-085.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.226.44]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNW00JUSMS874@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:31:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FA99656.8040508@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 - SPEWS.ORG Domain De-activated Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:31:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O According to the WHOIS records at PIR, it seems that SPEWS.ORG domain name has been disabled (http://www.pir.org/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?whois_query_field=spews.org): --------------snip-------------- Domain ID: D74783489-LROR Domain Name: SPEWS.ORG Created On: 07-Jul-2001 19:50:12 UTC Last Updated On: 03-Nov-2003 15:44:43 UTC Expiration Date: 07-Jul-2008 19:50:12 UTC Sponsoring Registrar: CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH (R25-LROR) Status: INACTIVE Registrant Name: chip level domains Registrant Organization: Visit Lake Biakal! Registrant Street1: po box 61, Baikalsk-2 Registrant City: Irkutsk region, -- 665914 Registrant Postal Code: 665914 Registrant Country: RU Registrant Phone: +7.3952348335 Registrant FAX: +7.3952348335 Registrant Email: chip@sendmail.ru Admin Name: Sergei ''Chip'' Didorenko Admin Organization: Visit Lake Baikal! ~ http://baikal.irkutsk.org Admin Street1: po box 61, Baikalsk-2 Admin City: Irkutsk region Admin Postal Code: 665914 Admin Country: RU Admin Phone: +7.3952348335 Admin Email: chip@sendmail.ru Billing Name: Sergei ''Chip'' Didorenko Billing Organization: Visit Lake Baikal! ~ http://baikal.irkutsk.org Billing Street1: po box 61, Baikalsk-2 Billing City: Irkutsk region Billing Postal Code: 665914 Billing Country: RU Billing Phone: +7.3952348335 Billing Email: chip@sendmail.ru Tech Name: Sergei ''Chip'' Didorenko Tech Organization: Visit Lake Baikal! ~ http://baikal.irkutsk.org Tech Street1: po box 61, Baikalsk-2 Tech City: Irkutsk region Tech Postal Code: 665914 Tech Country: RU Tech Phone: +7.3952348335 Tech Email: chip@sendmail.ru Name Server: INVALID-ADDRESS.JOKER.COM -------------snip------------ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 5 23:34:39 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 XAA09761 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHbqg-0007q6-1V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA64YMRH030128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:34:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHbqf-0007pr-Ts for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:21 -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 XAA09755 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHbqd-0001ls-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHbqd-0001lp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHbqK-0007mL-Rn; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHbq9-0007lv-Fk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:33:50 -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 XAA09752 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHbq7-0001lb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:33:47 -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 1AHbq6-0001lX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:33:46 -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 1AHbs0-0004HA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:35:44 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:57:11 EST." <3FA98047.4080904@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: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:35:43 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > We are seeking additional input on this document and more volunteers to > help out with it. Please post comments to the list directly or contact > us off-list. I believe that both the inventory of problems, and the technical considerations documents, are strongly related. Both need more focus, and the diagrams in: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf are a good start. That document needs to be expanded to talk about specific network configurations used to deliver mail, which protocols are involved where, and which fields of those protocols are open to what kind of abuse. Once we have such a document, we can then proceed with "solving the problem in diagram X, protocol Y, abuse of field Z". Having a narrow statement of the problem scope means that any contentious issues are minimized, as the discussion is about specific real-world details, and not personal opinion. It also means that the inventory of problems is relatively simple: point to the diagrams, and the points of abuse that they contain. Many technical considerations are likewise straightforward: changes this point of network communication propogate throughout the rest of the diagram. I think this post means that I'm volunteering to write that document. I'm not sure I'm happy with taking on more work, and I'm certainly not an SMTP or DNS expert. But having something on paper will be useful. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 07:00:29 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 HAA05334 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:00:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHio7-0001oI-Qk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:00:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6C0B6I006954 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:00:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHio7-0001o5-My for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:00:11 -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 GAA05305 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHio3-0007dX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:00:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHio3-0007dU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:00:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHiny-0001lP-Jz; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:00:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHinP-0001iW-Md for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 06:59:27 -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 GAA05291 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:59:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHinL-0007cr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 06:59:23 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHinK-0007cc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 06:59:22 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 953BA3802A; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:58:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD3F38029 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:58:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id LAA01863; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:58:54 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Message-ID: <20031106115854.GG601@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:58:54 +0000 Status: O I just read through the "Inventory of problems" document, and I have a few comments. Some of those comments reflect my anti-virus background, and the increasing connection I am seeing between viruses and spam. I have three separate comments on the document. First I would like to add one problem - the issue of "unintentional" spam generated by incorrectly configured mail filters. I have brought this subject up elsewhere - see for examply my open letter in http://www.f-prot.com/news/gen_news/open_letter_10sept2003.html Basically the problem is the following: Many mass-mailing worms do not only select the recipient at random, but also forge the "From" address and possibly the envelope sender too. A mail filter receives the worm, and responds by sending out two mails, one going to the (assumed) sender, informing him that he sent a virus, and the other going to the recipient, informing him that so-and-so just sent him a virus. Quite apart from the legal issues here (incorrectly claiming that someone sent a virus may damage the reputation of that party), this is just wrong behaviour, and while it is hard to define what would be "correct", my position is the following: A mail filter intercepting a virus/worm should respond to the sender only if the sender is known with certainity to be the "real" sender, not just a forgery. Determining this with absolute certainity is next to impossible with the current mail transfer protocols, however, a virus mail filter should in theory be able to keep a list of common viruses/worms known to forge the sender's address, and not respond if one of those viruses/worms is intercepted. Without such a list, the filter should not respond to the (assumed) sender at all, for the reason that the majority of mass-mailing worms in circulation forge the sender this way. As for mailing the recipient, there is simply no good reason for doing so in the case of mass-mailing, self-contained worms. The recipient does not in any way benefit from knowing that someone, somewhere attempted to send him a virus. There is only one set of circumstances where it might make sense to notify the recipient, and that is when the mail contains a parasitic virus, which does not mail itself. A reasonable approach is not to notify the recipient if the name of the intercepted virus/worm contains "@m" or "@mm", as that implies self-mailing capability. My second point involves the point about spam as DoS attack. I would suggest that this problem should be considered two separate problems, as there are some fundamental differences. On one hand we have direct DoS attacks, or more typically distributed attacks (DDoS) where a large number of "zombie" machines under the control of a single party participate in a concerted attack against a single address or domain. On the other hand we have indirect DoS attacks, which happen as a result of an address being used as the "From" address of a spam campaign. Various spam filters will respond with a "Message rejected" to the (assumed) sender, who may in extreme cases receive tens of thousands of such notices. My third point involves the "Fraud & Crime" section, where I suggest adding two more types of spam scams. First, stock manipulation. There are spammers that attempt to push various penny stocks (most recently TRHL, PFDE and AZAA). I have done some analysis on activity of the stocks in question and it is very interesting to observe the increased trading volume in the weeks prior to the spamming (presumably when the spammer is accumulating shares). The second common category is the lottery scam - typically mails with subjects like "YOU ARE A WINNER OF US$2.5MILLION LOTTO" -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 10:57:38 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 KAA14458 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHmVd-0006kX-GD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6FvLd4025941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:57:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHmVd-0006kK-CZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:21 -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 KAA14425 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHmVa-0002qJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHmVa-0002qG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHmUM-0006bi-1H; Thu, 06 Nov 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 1AHmTn-0006al-PM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:55:31 -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 KAA14376 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHmTk-0002pD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:55:24 -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 1AHmTk-0002p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:55:24 -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 1AHmVi-0004Q2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:26 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:47:56 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: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:57:26 -0500 Status: O "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > That document needs to be expanded to talk about specific network > > configurations used to deliver mail, which protocols are involved > > where, and which fields of those protocols are open to what kind of > > abuse. Once we have such a document, we can then proceed with > > "solving the problem in diagram X, protocol Y, abuse of field Z". > > Isn't email path verification in the domain of the msgtrk group? Sure, but message tracking has nothing to do with prevention of abuse. Message tracking includes a way of tracking down abuse among *cooperating* entities, but even that tracking doesn't help when spammers don't cooperate. My reason for drawing network "tracking" diagrams for email is to write down the problem we're trying to solve. Currently, the charter is vague, and very unhelpful. Witness the huge volume on the list, for the first few months. Most of that volume was caused by people talking at cross purposes, because no one agreed on a problem statement. By drawing diagrams of entities & protocols in the network, we can say "spammers are abusing diagram X, protocol Y, and field Z". We can then come up with a solution which addresses that abuse, and doesn't affect anything else in the network. > I'd like to raise a couple of issues with it as it stands: > "False Claims - regarding opt-in" duplicates "Inadequate opt-in" > "Not a real business" doesn't seem to mean anything. Are we to solve the problem of consent to *business* communication, or are we dealing with protocols on the Internet? I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be outside of the scope of this group. There's little to nothing we can do to address those problems. And anything we CAN do to address those problems will involve protocol changes on the net. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 14:19:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23947 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpej-0003EM-Ah for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:18:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6JIvbc012412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:18:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpej-0003E7-6B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:18:57 -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 OAA23854 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpeg-0006C7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:18:54 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpeg-0006BO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:18:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AHpa1-0000KK-Sc for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpZx-0002se-1p; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpZi-0002sG-TP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:13:48 -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 OAA23626 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpZg-00067D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:13:44 -0500 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpZe-00066j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:13:43 -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 hA6JE38O030394 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:14:03 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 2003110617191466:17338 ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:19:14 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031106170753.01c00e50@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] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 06/11/2003 17:19:15, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 06/11/2003 17:19:16, Serialize complete at 06/11/2003 17:19:16 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, 06 Nov 2003 17:10:54 -0200 Status: O At 6/11/2003 17:01 Thursday, you wrote: >While looking at some statistics in my incoming spam, I noticed that the >ca 50% of korean spams I had for the last 1.5 year have dropped to nearly >zero around Oct. 1. All .kr domains is gone and the asian spam I see is >from non asian domains. While I cant say that my personal account ever received lots of it (3-5 by month), it definitely is down almost 0 but it comes from asian domains. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 14:19:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24001 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpf2-0003G5-0T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6JJFqJ012519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpf1-0003Fq-TD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:15 -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 OAA23907 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpez-0006DB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:13 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpey-0006CB-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AHpRg-0008O4-Gb for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:05:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpRG-0001nD-Uv; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpQW-0001lU-Ce for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:04:16 -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 OAA23206 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpQT-0005yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:04:13 -0500 Received: from bay2-f131.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.131] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpQS-0005xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:04:12 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:01:44 -0800 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:01:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2003 19:01:44.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[6BDCC2C0:01C3A498] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:01:44 -0300 Status: O I took this up around Oct. 15, but never got any response at that time. While looking at some statistics in my incoming spam, I noticed that the ca 50% of korean spams I had for the last 1.5 year have dropped to nearly zero around Oct. 1. All .kr domains is gone and the asian spam I see is from non asian domains. Question is if the new spam laws in Korea have had an effect or if I just see the result of filtering on some trunk line between Europe and Korea? For if this is a global effect, koreans stopped spamming (ok, ok, but it is soon Fathers Day, and this would be better than the tie I never use ;-), the antispam community have to consider the impact of legal actions, with the new EU law getting in place, definitively marking NA/SA spammers as the main culprits. If not and it is just a local effect, which ISP installed this effective filter and how many countries are affected? Might mean that trunk line filtering should be considered. 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 Thu Nov 6 14:20:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24050 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpfs-0003Lf-Mt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6JK8NP012865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:20:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpfs-0003LQ-4j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:08 -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 OAA24018 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpfp-0006E3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpfp-0006E0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpfm-0003He-9h; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpfA-0003GQ-4M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:24 -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 OAA23927 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpf7-0006DY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:21 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpf6-0006DP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:19:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 13789 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 14:19:14 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 14:19:14 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 7894 invoked by uid 101); 6 Nov 2003 14:19:14 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Kurt Magnusson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? Message-ID: <20031106191914.GI27564@iridium.mv.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:14 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:01:44PM -0300, Kurt Magnusson wrote: > I took this up around Oct. 15, but never got any response at that time. > > Question is if the new spam laws in Korea have had an effect or if I just > see the result of filtering on some trunk line between Europe and Korea? Could be just a change in spammer operations. Personally I am seeing less spam via open SMTP relays and more spam via slave machines. These days when we get spam barrages, it's a few messages from one IP address, a few from another, over hundreds of sources. Some months ago the pattern was different, where a particular batch of spam would come from just a few different sources. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 14:24:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24151 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpjf-0003bx-Ez for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:24:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6JO3CO013875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:24:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpjf-0003bi-AC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:24:03 -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 OAA24147 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpjc-0006Gg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:24:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpjc-0006Gd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:24:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpjc-0003ZZ-KH; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:24:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHpiz-0003XL-60 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:23:21 -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 OAA24118 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:23:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHpiw-0006GE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:23:18 -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 1AHpiw-0006Fb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:23:18 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY0078K33QW3@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:21:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAA9F32.4040908@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] 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:21:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group of the World Wide Consortium (W3C) has published a working draft on Turing tests and accessibility issues. This is in particular very relevant to C/R systems. The current version of the draft is available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ Comments are welcome and we need to also figure out how this is relevant to our requirements. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 14:44:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25433 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHq33-00060K-9C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Ji5vE023074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:44:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHq32-000605-Rd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:04 -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 OAA25415 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHq30-0006hZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHq2z-0006hW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHq2y-0005xr-MH; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHq2i-0005xK-4B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:44 -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 OAA25384 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHq2f-0006gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:41 -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 1AHq2e-0006ga-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:41 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY001LF43UCK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:43:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper In-reply-to: To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAAA447.8080506@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: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Alan DeKok wrote: > I've posted the first draft of the ASRG-RMX discussion paper on the > combined proposal to the ASRG-RMX list. It's available on gmane, at: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx/260 > > I do not currently have sufficient time to discuss or defend the > document. If there are errors of fact, please email me with > references, and suggested replacement text. > > Any flames will be archived for later amusement. > This document is available for download at the ASRG's wotksite at the following URL: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 14:57:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25999 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:57:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqFg-0006fc-ON for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Jv8E5025634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:57:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqFg-0006fN-Kp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:08 -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 OAA25965 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqFd-0006vA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqFd-0006v6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqFa-0006bS-Bg; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqFQ-0006aF-As for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:56:52 -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 OAA25926 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqFN-0006u1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:56:49 -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 1AHqFN-0006tN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:56:49 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY002QP4PQSZ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:56:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <3FAA9F32.4040908@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAAA75C.5020906@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: <3FAA9F32.4040908@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Turing Tests - News Article on Exploits (was Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:56:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group of the World Wide Consortium > (W3C) has published a working draft on Turing tests and accessibility > issues. This is in particular very relevant to C/R systems. The current > version of the draft is available at: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ > > Comments are welcome and we need to also figure out how this is relevant > to our requirements. > Just to add something to this, Matt McCay who is the author of this draft, posted a reference on his weblog about how a spammer was able to get human volunteers to visit a porn site and defeat the CAPTHAS. The weblog comment is here: http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/?id=257 and the original article here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03278/228349.stm Relevant quote: --------snip--------- But at least one potential spammer managed to crack the CAPTCHA test. Someone designed a software robot that would fill out a registration form and, when confronted with a CAPTCHA test, would post it on a free porn site. Visitors to the porn site would be asked to complete the test before they could view more pornography, and the software robot would use their answer to complete the e-mail registration. --------snip--------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 15:21:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28185 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqcz-00009g-WC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:21:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6KLDIW000590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:21:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqcz-00009R-Q4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:21:13 -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 PAA28175 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqcy-0007Im-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:21:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqcy-0007Ij-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:21:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqcp-00005M-0r; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqcL-0008VY-3U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:20:33 -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 PAA28122 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqcJ-0007Hf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:20:31 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqcJ-0007Hc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:20:31 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AHqcJ-0003wE-93 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:20:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed 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: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:20:31 +0000 Status: O AD wrote: > I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be > outside of the scope of this group. Right. > Currently, the charter > is vague, and very unhelpful. I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and what spammers do. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get through. A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). > Witness the huge volume on the list, > for the first few months. Most of that volume was caused by people > talking at cross purposes, because no one agreed on a problem > statement. I agree somewhat. As I remember, much of the traffic was produced by people touting their own silver bullets or, like you say, talking at cross purposes - because they weren't using the consent model. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 15:31:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28793 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqmY-0000aC-I1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:31:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6KV6TJ002234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:31:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqmY-0000Zx-AI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:31:06 -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 PAA28756 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqmW-0007Ug-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:31:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqmW-0007Ud-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:31:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqmU-0000Wa-GS; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqlc-0000VK-Dr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:08 -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 PAA28728 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqla-0007SE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:06 -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 1AHqla-0007Rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY002KR697SZ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:29:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FAAAF27.5010408@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: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:29:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Jon Kyme wrote: > AD wrote: > >>Currently, the charter >>is vague, and very unhelpful. > > > I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / > enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and > what spammers do. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for > (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or > alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people > want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. > It is hard to explain consent to someone when all the legal efforts are talking about consent. People tend to misunderstand the concept. However, I think that both of you are right - we need to look at what spam and spammers do AND at how we start looking at the entire email system as one with consent. > For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything > much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that > the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get > through. > > A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know > anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from > *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). > Do you think that the current draft of the consent framework seems to be heading in the right direction? Draft: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 15:36:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29016 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrR-0001Mc-Em for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Ka9X7005240 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrQ-0001GZ-9K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:08 -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 PAA28987 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqrN-0007aD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqrM-0007a8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrL-00018a-0b; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqr7-000162-VI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:50 -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 PAA28975 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqr6-0007Ze-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:48 -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 1AHqr6-0007Z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:48 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY0010T6IPCK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:35:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-reply-to: <20031106115854.GG601@f-prot.com> To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAAB07D.4040207@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: <20031106115854.GG601@f-prot.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, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Fridrik Skulason wrote: > I just read through the "Inventory of problems" document, and I have a few > comments. Some of those comments reflect my anti-virus background, and the > increasing connection I am seeing between viruses and spam. > > I have three separate comments on the document. > > First I would like to add one problem - the issue of "unintentional" spam > generated by incorrectly configured mail filters. > > I have brought this subject up elsewhere - see for examply my open letter > in http://www.f-prot.com/news/gen_news/open_letter_10sept2003.html > ....snip.... The following Internet draft seems to touch on the same subject: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt > .....snip..... > > My third point involves the "Fraud & Crime" section, where I suggest adding > two more types of spam scams. > > First, stock manipulation. There are spammers that attempt to push > various penny stocks (most recently TRHL, PFDE and AZAA). I have done > some analysis on activity of the stocks in question and it is very > interesting to observe the increased trading volume in the weeks prior > to the spamming (presumably when the spammer is accumulating shares). > > The second common category is the lottery scam - typically mails with > subjects like "YOU ARE A WINNER OF US$2.5MILLION LOTTO" > ........snip........ We need to rethink whether to include "social" and "legal" issues in the inventory of problems. On one hand, we are a technical group and are not considering legal issues, on the other hand without some of these issues, the picture may be incomplete. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 15:36:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29031 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrR-0001Md-En for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Ka9GH005239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrO-0001GH-Qu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:06 -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 PAA28989 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqrN-0007aF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqrM-0007a9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqrK-000189-Gj; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHqqi-00014O-GE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:28 -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 PAA28966 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqqh-0007ZG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:23 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHqqg-0007Z2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:22 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 508F41F07F; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:38:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Message-ID: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:38:38 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:20:31PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > Alan DeKok wrote: > > Currently, the charter > > is vague, and very unhelpful. > > I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / > enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and > what spammers do. I agree with John, that the charter is helpful. However, I agree with Alan, that the charter is vague. I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. Once you have them, you can identify which use cases are abused by spammers. You can look at which proposed solutions affect which cases. You can look at which cases suffer side-effects from each proposal. Instead of 'A is better than B', you get to 'A fixes 1,2,3 - B fixes 3,4,5 - seems that we need a bit of both'. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for > (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or > alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people > want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. A set of use cases would allow definition of trust diagrams, which would show which attributes of the communication are trustworthy at each transition (between hosts/organizations/programs/protocols). It's not that what you said can't be helpful - I think it needs to be more specific. > For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything > much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that > the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get > through. > A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know > anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from > *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). It's possible that some sub-set of the solutions affect all the use cases equally. Their side-effects probably effect all uses-cases equally as well. -- 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 Thu Nov 6 15:47:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00018 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr21-0002rY-2a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:47:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Kl5at010998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:47:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr20-0002rJ-T2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:47:04 -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 PAA29996 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr1z-0000AS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:47:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr1z-0000AP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:47:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr1x-0002pa-Eh; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr19-0002nA-3t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:46:11 -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 PAA29979 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr17-0000A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:46:09 -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 1AHr17-00009S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:46:09 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY001AN6ZYCK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:45:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-reply-to: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FAAB2EA.70804@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: <20031106203837.GA9816@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: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:45:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O David Maxwell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:20:31PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > >>Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>>Currently, the charter >>>is vague, and very unhelpful. >> >>I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / >>enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and >>what spammers do. > > > I agree with John, that the charter is helpful. However, I agree with > Alan, that the charter is vague. > > I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. > Someone already wrote a document with a set of use cases! See this message: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07695.html The document is available at: http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of problems work. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 15:54:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00428 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr8m-0003BE-6V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:54:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA6Ks4Fl012218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:54:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr8m-0003Az-0u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:54:04 -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 PAA00384 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:53:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr8k-0000JQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:54:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr8k-0000JN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:54:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr8j-00038q-0v; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHr8a-00038A-UL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:53:52 -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 PAA00340 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr8Z-0000Ih-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:53:51 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHr8Y-0000Ie-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:53:50 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 93E311F07F; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Message-ID: <20031106205715.GB9816@mail> References: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.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: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:57:15 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > David Maxwell wrote: > >I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. > > Someone already wrote a document with a set of use cases! See this message: > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07695.html > http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of > problems work. It can certainly be used. I don't think it's quite specific enough for the final version - as we need to cover protocol specific issues. In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each method that a user currently has available for delivering a message appropriate to that use case. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> (About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic! - Jamie Woods _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 19:12:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09696 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHuEk-00089F-CY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:12:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA70CQJ6031315 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:12:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHuEk-000890-8e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:12:26 -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 TAA09673 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHuEi-0003Ip-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:12:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHuEi-0003Il-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:12:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHuEL-00086N-77; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHuDP-00082q-Uw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:11:03 -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 TAA09609 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHuDM-0003I2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:11:00 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHuDM-0003Hc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:11:00 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 91CF33806A; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:10:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399F438047 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:10:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id AAA02178; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:10:30 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031107001030.GN601@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:10:30 +0000 Status: O I posted a reply on this subject earlier today, mentioning some analysis I had done on the spam reaching my spamtraps, which get around 3000 spams per day. Analysis of the Content-Type charset revealed a sharp (around 95%) drop in the number of Korean messages around October 1st, but a gradual increase in the number of Chinese messages for the last 6 months. However, in my post I made one mistake - I mentioned the actual names of the charsets ;-) This caused the ietf.org spam blocker to kick in and reject my message: **************** eManager Notification ***************** The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: Destination mailbox(es): asrg@ietf.org Policy: Non-English Trap Action: Quarantine To prevent excessive spam abuse, non-English character sets have been blocked at www.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat's official language of operation is English - although the message you have sent was proper, your mail composer's settings specified an Asian 'charset' which is widely used by spam abusers. To permit your message (and confirm human response), please include the keyword: ' spamcontrol ' somewhere in your message. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. ******************* End of message ********************* This is wrong, of course - the message charset was not an asian one, but the names of several Asian charsets were included in the message body. It seems this was enough to trigger the spam filter - it is not sufficiently intelligent to search only for the offending charsets within Content-Type. Slightly off-topic, but a bit funny ;-) -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 19:45:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10465 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHukM-0001S1-In for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA70j6NI005571 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHukM-0001Rm-Ea for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -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 TAA10453 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:44:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHukK-0003cp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:45:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHukK-0003cm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:45:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHukI-0001PU-EC; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHukF-0001Oj-Cm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:44:59 -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 TAA10441 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHukB-0003cT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:44:56 -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 1AHukB-0003bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:44:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNY000BHI1X2M@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:44:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? In-reply-to: <20031107001030.GN601@f-prot.com> To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAAEAE2.7050501@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: <20031107001030.GN601@f-prot.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, 06 Nov 2003 19:44:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O That's strange since according to the IETF anti-spam guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/spamcontrol.html), we are supposed to be exempt from ALL anti-spam policies. I have notified the IETF Mail administrator. Fridrik Skulason wrote: > I posted a reply on this subject earlier today, mentioning some analysis > I had done on the spam reaching my spamtraps, which get around 3000 > spams per day. > > Analysis of the Content-Type charset revealed a sharp (around 95%) > drop in the number of Korean messages around October 1st, but a > gradual increase in the number of Chinese messages for the last 6 > months. > > However, in my post I made one mistake - I mentioned the actual > names of the charsets ;-) > > This caused the ietf.org spam blocker to kick in and reject my > message: > > **************** eManager Notification ***************** > > The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. > > Source mailbox: > Destination mailbox(es): asrg@ietf.org > Policy: Non-English Trap > Action: Quarantine > > To prevent excessive spam abuse, non-English character sets > have been blocked at www.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat's > official language of operation is English - although the > message you have sent was proper, your mail composer's > settings specified an Asian 'charset' which is widely > used by spam abusers. To permit your message (and confirm > human response), please include the keyword: ' spamcontrol ' > somewhere in your message. We apologize for any inconvenience > this may cause. > > ******************* End of message ********************* > > This is wrong, of course - the message charset was not an asian > one, but the names of several Asian charsets were included in > the message body. It seems this was enough to trigger the > spam filter - it is not sufficiently intelligent to search only > for the offending charsets within Content-Type. > > Slightly off-topic, but a bit funny ;-) > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 6 23:16:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15831 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHy2i-0002VU-Ak for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA74GGCd009630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:16:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHy2h-0002VF-NL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:16 -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 XAA15825 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHy2f-00069B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHy2f-000698-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHy2T-0002T8-MT; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AHu0U-0006jz-8M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:57:42 -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 SAA09106 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:57:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHu0Q-00034x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:57:39 -0500 Received: from knecht.sendmail.org ([209.31.233.176] helo=knecht.Neophilic.COM) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AHu0Q-00034c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:57:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.Neophilic.COM (localhost.Neophilic.COM [127.0.0.1]) by knecht.Neophilic.COM (8.12.10/8.13.0.PreAlpha0) with ESMTP id hA6Nv4g1013586; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:57:05 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Allman To: Yakov Shafranovich , David Maxwell cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Message-ID: <1709252704.1068163024@knecht.Sendmail.ORG> In-Reply-To: <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> References: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:57:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O | The document is available at: | | http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf I believe this (quite good) document misses at least one very important use case: Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob (bob@somewhere.org), but he has a new account and has forwarded his old address to his new address (xyzzy@foobar.edu). eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 07:38:10 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12820 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI5s0-0003z7-S8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:37:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7CbiEi015311 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:37:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI5s0-0003yk-4R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:37:44 -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 HAA12797 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI5rz-0004No-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:37:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI5rz-0004Nl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:37:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI5rO-0003hy-1D; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI5rC-0003fN-Bo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:36:54 -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 HAA12680 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI5rB-0004M3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:36:53 -0500 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI5rB-0004LY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:36:53 -0500 Received: from [158.125.1.221] (helo=magic.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AI5qW-0005Af-MH; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:36:12 +0000 Received: from apache by magic.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1AI5qW-0003JY-Do; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:36:12 +0000 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 ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:36:12 +0000 Message-ID: <1068208572.3fab91bc5959a@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: Eric Allman Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed References: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> <1709252704.1068163024@knecht.Sendmail.ORG> In-Reply-To: <1709252704.1068163024@knecht.Sendmail.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-Scan-Signature: e6d65593305a8d9d6cf82f88a7c2d75e X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:36:13 +0000 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, 7 Nov 2003 12:36:12 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O Quoting Eric Allman : > | The document is available at: > | > | http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > I believe this (quite good) document misses at least one very > important use case: Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message > to Bob (bob@somewhere.org), but he has a new account and has > forwarded his old address to his new address (xyzzy@foobar.edu). Ah, many thanks... Someone else had separately pointed this out to me. I shall add it as an additional scenario. I've been getting behind with my ASRG mail, but will make a more determined effort to catch up :-) Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 07:48:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13024 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI621-0004Pp-Gp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:48:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7Cm5SH016970 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:48:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI621-0004Pd-CZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:48:05 -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 HAA13017 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI620-0004VK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:48:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI620-0004VH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:48:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI61w-0004NS-Rk; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI616-0004Mv-V4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:08 -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 HAA13010 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI616-0004Uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:08 -0500 Received: from ben.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI615-0004Up-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:07 -0500 Received: from [158.125.1.221] (helo=magic.lut.ac.uk) by ben.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AI614-0005a2-JK; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:47:06 +0000 Received: from apache by magic.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1AI614-0003u2-C1; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:47:06 +0000 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 ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1068209226.3fab944a522d7@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst To: David Maxwell Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed References: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> <20031106205715.GB9816@mail> In-Reply-To: <20031106205715.GB9816@mail> 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-Scan-Signature: 7982140d72c6bc5f9d4619c26c13c595 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Lboro-Filtered: ben.lut.ac.uk, Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:47:07 +0000 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, 7 Nov 2003 12:47:06 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O > > http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > > > We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of > > problems work. > > It can certainly be used. I don't think it's quite specific enough for > the final version - as we need to cover protocol specific issues. > > In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each > method that a user currently has available for delivering a message > appropriate to that use case. I think I understand what you mean, but could you perhaps give a more specific example? The problem I've found in writing those scenarios was that there is a huge number of configuration permutations. Hence they're currently rather general. Any suggestions for how to manage the complexity in generating a large number of similar (but subtly different) scenarios would be appreciated. I had considered rewriting the document in the form of a table whose columns represent different aspects of the scenario and whose rows correspond to each scenario, e.g.: Sender address | Recipient address | Forwarding? | Mailing list? ---------------------------------------------------------------- alice@a.com | bob@b.com | No | No alice@a.com | bob@b.com | Yes, by Bob | No Given suitable explanations of what each column means this might make it more manageable. Any thoughts? At the moment the document isn't very good, but given some more work and ideas I'm sure it can be improved. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 10:42:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19288 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI8kl-0003yO-8Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:42:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7FgRuY015266 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:42:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI8kl-0003y9-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:42:27 -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 KAA19278 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI8ki-0006ZF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:42:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI8ki-0006ZC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:42:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI8kK-0003v5-Bl; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI8je-0003tF-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:41:18 -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 KAA19249 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:41:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AI8jc-0006YF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:41:16 -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 1AI8jb-0006YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:41:15 -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 1AI8ln-0004nC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:43:31 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:47:06 GMT." <1068209226.3fab944a522d7@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> 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, 07 Nov 2003 10:43:29 -0500 Status: O Andrew Akehurst wrote: > > In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each > > method that a user currently has available for delivering a message > > appropriate to that use case. > > I think I understand what you mean, but could you perhaps give a more > specific example? My take on it is that your document talks about what the users do, and what their intentions are. I'm a protocol guy, so I don't have access to the users intentions. Therefore, the diagrams I need are diagrams of network boxes, and the protocols they use to interact. That is, machines on the network don't see intentions. They see data. When "bob" sends "alice" email, he may do so through any number of methods. Roaming, webmail, ISP, vpn, etc. All of those scenarios have the same intentions, but they also have drastically different implementation diagrams. > I had considered rewriting the document in the form of a table whose columns > represent different aspects of the scenario and whose rows correspond to > each scenario, e.g.: > > Sender address | Recipient address | Forwarding? | Mailing list? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > alice@a.com | bob@b.com | No | No > alice@a.com | bob@b.com | Yes, by Bob | No Again, you're focussing on intentions. This makes it difficult to figure out what to do. It also makes it difficult to talk about it on the list, as the situations are wide-open for personal interpretation. "Well, MY mailing list works, and YOURS doesn't, so I don't see why you would want to change anything..." Keeping things on a protocol level means that personal issues are largely avoided. It also means that you have something concrete to talk about: "Box A talks to box B, using protocol C, which has fields D, E, and F, used to send messages. Field F can be forged undetectably, so we propose solution G to address that forgery..." In contrast, a "mailing list" means many different things to different people. Such lists are implemented and configured differently, all due to the intentions of the administrator. This means that no one can agree on the definition of a "mailing list", as everyone uses them in slightly different manners. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 12:50:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26612 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAkc-0003Yi-1i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:50:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7HoQIu013674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:50:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAkb-0003YT-Sg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:50:25 -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 MAA26596 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAka-0000OQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:50:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAkZ-0000ON-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:50:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAkE-0003W1-Ji; Fri, 07 Nov 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 1AIAjF-0003Uu-Oa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:49:01 -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 MAA26550 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAjD-0000Mz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0500 Received: from saul.cis.upenn.edu ([158.130.12.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAjD-0000Mv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0500 Received: from cis.upenn.edu (TM76PC4.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.67.0]) (authenticated bits=0) by saul.cis.upenn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA7Hmwvu024458 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FABDB0A.4080008@cis.upenn.edu> From: michael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 58th IETF 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: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:48:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hello, Would some of the active members of the group like to meet during the IETF meeting in Minneapolis, MN for coffee or the like? I'm sure there are a number of folks watching the discussion (myself included) who would like to discuss the current drafts and proposals with the authors and others interested. Michael May _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 13:02:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27009 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAw3-00040e-C5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:02:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7I2FR0015406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:02:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAw3-00040P-7z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:02:15 -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 NAA27004 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAw0-0000Xj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:02:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAvz-0000Xg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:02:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAvp-0003y2-5X; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIAv9-0003xX-Vp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:01:19 -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 NAA26992 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:01:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAv8-0000XH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:01:18 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIAv6-0000XE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:01:16 -0500 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA7I1k208856 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:01:46 GMT Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id AFA5C16FC3; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99942F8A5; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:01:11 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: jm@jmason.org From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-image-url: http://jmason.org/me.jpg 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: <20031107180111.AFA5C16FC3@jmason.org> Subject: [Asrg] 2. Analysis - real-time DNSBL accuracy figures Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:01:06 -0800 Status: O Hi folks. A few months back, there was a discussion of DNSBL accuracy; I posted some SpamAssassin figures, based on our "mass-check" tests, but noted that they were computed using *current* DNSBL contents against a corpus of *saved* mail, so due to the time delta, were not 100% representative. These figures are a lot better. Since August, I've been collecting real-time DNSBL hit data on my mail, as it is delivered at my SpamAssassin installation. In other words, it's *live* accuracy data -- it's using just what the DNSBLs had listed at scan time. Note, however, that it's still incomplete: - some DNSBLs were not measured; these are just the default DNSBL list in SpamAssassin 2.60, excluding RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP (which I had to remove because I can't parse out accurate data). - it's only 1 person's hand-classified mail. - SpamAssassin tests more than just the "delivering" SMTP relay; it'll also look backwards through the headers, at earlier relays, to catch spam sent via mailing lists. But the results should still be quite useful. The time period covered: - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT) - Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Recap of the fields: - SPAM% = percentage of messages hit that were spam - HAM% = percentage of messages hit that were spam - S/O = Spam/Overall = Bayesian probability of spam - RANK = artificial ranking figure, ignore this! - SCORE = default SpamAssassin 2.60 score - NAME = name of test. Figuring out the exactly DNSBL should be pretty obvious ;) OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 21839 1993 19846 0.091 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 9.1259 90.8741 0.091 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 5.989 59.0567 0.6601 0.989 1.00 2.25 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 3.869 37.7822 0.4636 0.988 0.96 1.10 RCVD_IN_DSBL 0.751 8.2288 0.0000 1.000 0.95 4.30 RCVD_IN_OPM_HTTP 1.964 20.2709 0.1260 0.994 0.95 1.10 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0.659 7.1751 0.0050 0.999 0.95 0.64 RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM 0.614 0.0000 0.6752 0.000 0.94 -0.10 RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER 0.050 0.5519 0.0000 1.000 0.94 4.30 RCVD_IN_OPM_SOCKS 0.027 0.3011 0.0000 1.000 0.94 4.30 RCVD_IN_OPM_WINGATE 0.119 0.0000 0.1310 0.000 0.94 -4.30 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED 0.939 9.7341 0.0554 0.994 0.94 4.30 RCVD_IN_OPM 1.081 10.9383 0.0907 0.992 0.93 1.52 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS 1.062 10.7376 0.0907 0.992 0.93 1.27 RCVD_IN_SBL 0.229 2.4084 0.0101 0.996 0.93 1.10 RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0.618 6.3221 0.0453 0.993 0.93 1.10 RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0.595 5.9709 0.0554 0.991 0.92 4.30 RCVD_IN_OPM_HTTP_POST 0.078 0.7526 0.0101 0.987 0.90 2.60 RCVD_IN_SORBS_ZOMBIE 0.815 7.5263 0.1411 0.982 0.89 1.39 DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN 3.594 24.8369 1.4613 0.944 0.81 2.55 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK 1.685 11.4400 0.7054 0.942 0.78 0.10 RCVD_IN_RFCI 0.380 2.4586 0.1713 0.935 0.75 1.31 RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 6.182 33.9689 3.3911 0.909 0.73 0.10 RCVD_IN_NJABL 10.422 44.4054 7.0090 0.864 0.63 0.10 RCVD_IN_SORBS 0.037 0.1505 0.0252 0.857 0.54 2.80 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 2.344 4.1144 2.1667 0.655 0.17 0.00 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 13:15:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27583 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIB8a-00053X-36 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:15:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7IFCr1019429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:15:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIB8Z-00053I-V9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:15:12 -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 NAA27554 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIB8Y-0000hS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:15:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIB8X-0000hP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:15:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIB8Q-00050z-1T; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIB8E-00050U-52 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:14:50 -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 NAA27549 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIB8C-0000hG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:14:48 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIB8B-0000hD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:14:47 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 308111F07F; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:18:12 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Andrew Akehurst Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Message-ID: <20031107181811.GD9816@mail> References: <20031106203837.GA9816@mail> <3FAAB2EA.70804@solidmatrix.com> <20031106205715.GB9816@mail> <1068209226.3fab944a522d7@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1068209226.3fab944a522d7@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> 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, 7 Nov 2003 13:18:12 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:47:06PM +0000, Andrew Akehurst wrote: > > > In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each > > method that a user currently has available for delivering a message > > appropriate to that use case. > I think I understand what you mean, but could you perhaps give a more > specific example? I think Alan's message covered what I was going to reply with, so I'll just give an example. In your list, alice@a.com -> bob@b.com forwarding=no, list=no has at least the following configurations... alice and bob log into a unix host to read their mail, and a.com and b.com are on the same server... alice and bob log into a unix host to read their mail, but are on two servers with a UUCP connection. alice and bob log into a unix host to read their mail, but are on two servers with an SMTP connection. etc. > The problem I've found in writing those scenarios was that there is a huge > number of configuration permutations. Hence they're currently rather > general. Any suggestions for how to manage the complexity in generating a > large number of similar (but subtly different) scenarios would be appreciated. The total number will be large, but I suspect that a lot of cases can be lumped together in the end, because whether 'my mbox file is on a local hard disk / my mbox file is on an nfs mounted volume' doesn't have any attributes that differ, as far as SMTP/spam is concerned. Start from first principles, and focus on the attributes of the implementation - then you'll get why architectural changes have been made in the past, and where the _real_ differences are. -- 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 Fri Nov 7 14:37:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03415 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICPx-0002Yf-G2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:37:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7JbDPb009825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:37:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICPw-0002YG-U4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:37:12 -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 OAA03402 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICPu-0001tJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:37:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICPt-0001tG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:37:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICPl-0002Sk-2J; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICPi-0002SN-9n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:36:58 -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 OAA03396 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICPf-0001t6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:36:55 -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 1AICPf-0001sr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:36:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-383-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.211.234]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HNZ00IQBYF61Q@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:35:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - 58th IETF meeting (was Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting) In-reply-to: <3FABDB0A.4080008@cis.upenn.edu> To: michael Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FABF3FF.40708@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: <3FABDB0A.4080008@cis.upenn.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:35:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O michael wrote: > Hello, > > Would some of the active members of the group like to meet during the > IETF meeting in Minneapolis, MN for coffee or the like? I'm sure there > are a number of folks watching the discussion (myself included) who > would like to discuss the current drafts and proposals with the authors > and others interested. The ASRG will NOT be meeting at the 58th IETF formally, however if there is sufficient interest, we can organize an informal meeting or chat. Please reply on-list or off-list, and meanwhile I will contact the IETF folks to see if they can provide some coffee and donuts :) Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 14:50:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03874 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:50:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICcS-0003nW-Rw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:50:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7Jo8JC014592 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:50:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICcS-0003mb-LL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:50:08 -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 OAA03811 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICcP-00023N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:50:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICcP-00023K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:50:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICcL-0003g0-Uy; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AICc6-0003fP-F3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:49:46 -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 OAA03764 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICc3-00022s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:49:43 -0500 Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com ([144.135.25.159]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AICbt-000224-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:49:36 -0500 Received: from lerc-daemon.mta05ps.email.bigpond.com by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HNZ00A0FZ1J06@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from email.bigpond.com ([172.26.103.16]) by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HNZ002EZZ1AIY@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org.lerc-daemon (ORCPT asrg@ietf.org); Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:48:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.115.152] by mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com (mshttpd) ; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:48:46 +1000 From: "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Oct 29 2003) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_7J4ff3ZNXwJa1opmgTbPFg)" Content-language: en X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal Subject: [Asrg] Re:Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Nov 2003 05:48:46 +1000 Status: O This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_7J4ff3ZNXwJa1opmgTbPFg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I'm new to ASRG but have just read the above draft paper. The idea of LMAP (Lightweight MTA Authentication Protocol) makes a lot of sense to me, and I hope this can move quickly forward. Congratulations to Alan DeKok, Raymond Brand, Hadmut Danisch, Gordon Fecyk, Richard Rognlie, Lauerence Sherzer, and Meng Weng Wong! All of you and anyone else not mentioned who has played a major part in getting this to a stage where it can move forward also should be credited. I hope it moves forward with ASRG support and finds major support in IETF. It may not solve all the worlds problems, it may not be perfect, but it's a major step in the right direction! Ian Peter --Boundary_(ID_7J4ff3ZNXwJa1opmgTbPFg) Content-type: message/rfc822 Return-path: Received: from mta03bw.bigpond.com ([192.168.115.88]) by mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HNZ00M67RH675@mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com> for ipeter%bigpond.net.au@ims-ms-daemon; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:05:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cofe-daemon.mta03bw.email.bigpond.com by mta03bw.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HNZ005QCRH6LF@mta03bw.email.bigpond.com> for ipeter@bigpond.net.au (ORCPT ipeter@bigpond.net.au); Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:05:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tbf-daemon.mta03bw.email.bigpond.com by mta03bw.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HNZ0052ZRGY3K@mta03bw.email.bigpond.com> for ipeter@bigpond.net.au; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([144.135.24.72]) by mta03bw.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HNZ0051BRB88Q@mta03bw.email.bigpond.com> for ipeter@bigpond.net.au; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from datatracker.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22]) by bwmam02.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_3_2d 11/4961283); Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:01:56 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AI9yv-0000GL-O7; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:01:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:00:05 -0500 From: asrg-request@ietf.org Subject: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #431 - 19 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Errors-to: asrg-admin@ietf.org Reply-to: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <20031107170005.32609.29439.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.12 Content-type: text/plain Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Original-recipient: rfc822;ipeter@bigpond.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Send Asrg mailing list submissions to asrg@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to asrg-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at asrg-admin@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Asrg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? (Kurt Magnusson) 2. Re: Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? (Andreas Saurwein) 3. Re: Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? (Mark E. Mallett) 4. 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published (Yakov Shafranovich) 5. Re: 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper (Yakov Shafranovich) 6. 6. Proposals - Turing Tests - News Article on Exploits (was Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published) (Yakov Shafranovich) 7. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Jon Kyme) 8. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Yakov Shafranovich) 9. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (David Maxwell) 10. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Yakov Shafranovich) 11. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Yakov Shafranovich) 12. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (David Maxwell) 13. Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? (Fridrik Skulason) 14. Re: Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? (Yakov Shafranovich) 15. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Eric Allman) 16. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Andrew Akehurst) 17. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Andrew Akehurst) 18. Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed (Alan DeKok) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:01:44 -0300 I took this up around Oct. 15, but never got any response at that time. While looking at some statistics in my incoming spam, I noticed that the ca 50% of korean spams I had for the last 1.5 year have dropped to nearly zero around Oct. 1. All .kr domains is gone and the asian spam I see is from non asian domains. Question is if the new spam laws in Korea have had an effect or if I just see the result of filtering on some trunk line between Europe and Korea? For if this is a global effect, koreans stopped spamming (ok, ok, but it is soon Fathers Day, and this would be better than the tie I never use ;-), the antispam community have to consider the impact of legal actions, with the new EU law getting in place, definitively marking NA/SA spammers as the main culprits. If not and it is just a local effect, which ISP installed this effective filter and how many countries are affected? Might mean that trunk line filtering should be considered. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:10:54 -0200 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? At 6/11/2003 17:01 Thursday, you wrote: >While looking at some statistics in my incoming spam, I noticed that the >ca 50% of korean spams I had for the last 1.5 year have dropped to nearly >zero around Oct. 1. All .kr domains is gone and the asian spam I see is >from non asian domains. While I cant say that my personal account ever received lots of it (3-5 by month), it definitely is down almost 0 but it comes from asian domains. Andreas --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:19:14 -0500 To: Kurt Magnusson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:01:44PM -0300, Kurt Magnusson wrote: > I took this up around Oct. 15, but never got any response at that time. > > Question is if the new spam laws in Korea have had an effect or if I just > see the result of filtering on some trunk line between Europe and Korea? Could be just a change in spammer operations. Personally I am seeing less spam via open SMTP relays and more spam via slave machines. These days when we get spam barrages, it's a few messages from one IP address, a few from another, over hundreds of sources. Some months ago the pattern was different, where a particular batch of spam would come from just a few different sources. mm --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:21:22 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group of the World Wide Consortium (W3C) has published a working draft on Turing tests and accessibility issues. This is in particular very relevant to C/R systems. The current version of the draft is available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ Comments are welcome and we need to also figure out how this is relevant to our requirements. --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:03 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Alan DeKok wrote: > I've posted the first draft of the ASRG-RMX discussion paper on the > combined proposal to the ASRG-RMX list. It's available on gmane, at: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx/260 > > I do not currently have sufficient time to discuss or defend the > document. If there are errors of fact, please email me with > references, and suggested replacement text. > > Any flames will be archived for later amusement. > This document is available for download at the ASRG's wotksite at the following URL: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:56:12 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Turing Tests - News Article on Exploits (was Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Accessibility - W3C draft published) Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group of the World Wide Consortium > (W3C) has published a working draft on Turing tests and accessibility > issues. This is in particular very relevant to C/R systems. The current > version of the draft is available at: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ > > Comments are welcome and we need to also figure out how this is relevant > to our requirements. > Just to add something to this, Matt McCay who is the author of this draft, posted a reference on his weblog about how a spammer was able to get human volunteers to visit a porn site and defeat the CAPTHAS. The weblog comment is here: http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/?id=257 and the original article here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03278/228349.stm Relevant quote: --------snip--------- But at least one potential spammer managed to crack the CAPTCHA test. Someone designed a software robot that would fill out a registration form and, when confronted with a CAPTCHA test, would post it on a free porn site. Visitors to the porn site would be asked to complete the test before they could view more pornography, and the software robot would use their answer to complete the e-mail registration. --------snip--------- --__--__-- Message: 7 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:20:31 +0000 AD wrote: > I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be > outside of the scope of this group. Right. > Currently, the charter > is vague, and very unhelpful. I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and what spammers do. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get through. A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). > Witness the huge volume on the list, > for the first few months. Most of that volume was caused by people > talking at cross purposes, because no one agreed on a problem > statement. I agree somewhat. As I remember, much of the traffic was produced by people touting their own silver bullets or, like you say, talking at cross purposes - because they weren't using the consent model. -- --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:29:27 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Jon Kyme wrote: > AD wrote: > >>Currently, the charter >>is vague, and very unhelpful. > > > I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / > enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and > what spammers do. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for > (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or > alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people > want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. > It is hard to explain consent to someone when all the legal efforts are talking about consent. People tend to misunderstand the concept. However, I think that both of you are right - we need to look at what spam and spammers do AND at how we start looking at the entire email system as one with consent. > For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything > much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that > the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get > through. > > A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know > anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from > *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). > Do you think that the current draft of the consent framework seems to be heading in the right direction? Draft: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html --__--__-- Message: 9 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:38:38 -0500 From: David Maxwell To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:20:31PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > Alan DeKok wrote: > > Currently, the charter > > is vague, and very unhelpful. > > I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / > enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and > what spammers do. I agree with John, that the charter is helpful. However, I agree with Alan, that the charter is vague. I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. Once you have them, you can identify which use cases are abused by spammers. You can look at which proposed solutions affect which cases. You can look at which cases suffer side-effects from each proposal. Instead of 'A is better than B', you get to 'A fixes 1,2,3 - B fixes 3,4,5 - seems that we need a bit of both'. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for > (recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or > alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people > want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful. A set of use cases would allow definition of trust diagrams, which would show which attributes of the communication are trustworthy at each transition (between hosts/organizations/programs/protocols). It's not that what you said can't be helpful - I think it needs to be more specific. > For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything > much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that > the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get > through. > A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know > anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from > *non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this). It's possible that some sub-set of the solutions affect all the use cases equally. Their side-effects probably effect all uses-cases equally as well. -- 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 --__--__-- Message: 10 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:35:09 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Fridrik Skulason wrote: > I just read through the "Inventory of problems" document, and I have a few > comments. Some of those comments reflect my anti-virus background, and the > increasing connection I am seeing between viruses and spam. > > I have three separate comments on the document. > > First I would like to add one problem - the issue of "unintentional" spam > generated by incorrectly configured mail filters. > > I have brought this subject up elsewhere - see for examply my open letter > in http://www.f-prot.com/news/gen_news/open_letter_10sept2003.html > ....snip.... The following Internet draft seems to touch on the same subject: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt > .....snip..... > > My third point involves the "Fraud & Crime" section, where I suggest adding > two more types of spam scams. > > First, stock manipulation. There are spammers that attempt to push > various penny stocks (most recently TRHL, PFDE and AZAA). I have done > some analysis on activity of the stocks in question and it is very > interesting to observe the increased trading volume in the weeks prior > to the spamming (presumably when the spammer is accumulating shares). > > The second common category is the lottery scam - typically mails with > subjects like "YOU ARE A WINNER OF US$2.5MILLION LOTTO" > ........snip........ We need to rethink whether to include "social" and "legal" issues in the inventory of problems. On one hand, we are a technical group and are not considering legal issues, on the other hand without some of these issues, the picture may be incomplete. Yakov --__--__-- Message: 11 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:45:30 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed To: David Maxwell Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. David Maxwell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:20:31PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > >>Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>>Currently, the charter >>>is vague, and very unhelpful. >> >>I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy / >>enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and >>what spammers do. > > > I agree with John, that the charter is helpful. However, I agree with > Alan, that the charter is vague. > > I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. > Someone already wrote a document with a set of use cases! See this message: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07695.html The document is available at: http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of problems work. --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:57:15 -0500 From: David Maxwell To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > David Maxwell wrote: > >I see what Alan proposed as a set of use cases for messaging. > > Someone already wrote a document with a set of use cases! See this message: > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07695.html > http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of > problems work. It can certainly be used. I don't think it's quite specific enough for the final version - as we need to cover protocol specific issues. In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each method that a user currently has available for delivering a message appropriate to that use case. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> (About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic! - Jamie Woods --__--__-- Message: 13 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:10:30 +0000 From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? I posted a reply on this subject earlier today, mentioning some analysis I had done on the spam reaching my spamtraps, which get around 3000 spams per day. Analysis of the Content-Type charset revealed a sharp (around 95%) drop in the number of Korean messages around October 1st, but a gradual increase in the number of Chinese messages for the last 6 months. However, in my post I made one mistake - I mentioned the actual names of the charsets ;-) This caused the ietf.org spam blocker to kick in and reject my message: **************** eManager Notification ***************** The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: Destination mailbox(es): asrg@ietf.org Policy: Non-English Trap Action: Quarantine To prevent excessive spam abuse, non-English character sets have been blocked at www.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat's official language of operation is English - although the message you have sent was proper, your mail composer's settings specified an Asian 'charset' which is widely used by spam abusers. To permit your message (and confirm human response), please include the keyword: ' spamcontrol ' somewhere in your message. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. ******************* End of message ********************* This is wrong, of course - the message charset was not an asian one, but the names of several Asian charsets were included in the message body. It seems this was enough to trigger the spam filter - it is not sufficiently intelligent to search only for the offending charsets within Content-Type. Slightly off-topic, but a bit funny ;-) -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 --__--__-- Message: 14 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:44:18 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 2a. Analysis - Changed patterns in spamming? To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. That's strange since according to the IETF anti-spam guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/spamcontrol.html), we are supposed to be exempt from ALL anti-spam policies. I have notified the IETF Mail administrator. Fridrik Skulason wrote: > I posted a reply on this subject earlier today, mentioning some analysis > I had done on the spam reaching my spamtraps, which get around 3000 > spams per day. > > Analysis of the Content-Type charset revealed a sharp (around 95%) > drop in the number of Korean messages around October 1st, but a > gradual increase in the number of Chinese messages for the last 6 > months. > > However, in my post I made one mistake - I mentioned the actual > names of the charsets ;-) > > This caused the ietf.org spam blocker to kick in and reject my > message: > > **************** eManager Notification ***************** > > The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. > > Source mailbox: > Destination mailbox(es): asrg@ietf.org > Policy: Non-English Trap > Action: Quarantine > > To prevent excessive spam abuse, non-English character sets > have been blocked at www.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat's > official language of operation is English - although the > message you have sent was proper, your mail composer's > settings specified an Asian 'charset' which is widely > used by spam abusers. To permit your message (and confirm > human response), please include the keyword: ' spamcontrol ' > somewhere in your message. We apologize for any inconvenience > this may cause. > > ******************* End of message ********************* > > This is wrong, of course - the message charset was not an asian > one, but the names of several Asian charsets were included in > the message body. It seems this was enough to trigger the > spam filter - it is not sufficiently intelligent to search only > for the offending charsets within Content-Type. > > Slightly off-topic, but a bit funny ;-) > --__--__-- Message: 15 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:57:04 -0800 From: Eric Allman To: Yakov Shafranovich , David Maxwell cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed | The document is available at: | | http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf I believe this (quite good) document misses at least one very important use case: Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message to Bob (bob@somewhere.org), but he has a new account and has forwarded his old address to his new address (xyzzy@foobar.edu). eric --__--__-- Message: 16 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:36:12 +0000 From: Andrew Akehurst To: Eric Allman Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , David Maxwell , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Quoting Eric Allman : > | The document is available at: > | > | http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > I believe this (quite good) document misses at least one very > important use case: Sender Alice (alice@example.com) sends a message > to Bob (bob@somewhere.org), but he has a new account and has > forwarded his old address to his new address (xyzzy@foobar.edu). Ah, many thanks... Someone else had separately pointed this out to me. I shall add it as an additional scenario. I've been getting behind with my ASRG mail, but will make a more determined effort to catch up :-) Andrew --__--__-- Message: 17 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:47:06 +0000 From: Andrew Akehurst To: David Maxwell Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed > > http://studenti.lboro.ac.uk/~coada/project/usecases.pdf > > > > We need to think how that can be intergrated with the inventory of > > problems work. > > It can certainly be used. I don't think it's quite specific enough for > the final version - as we need to cover protocol specific issues. > > In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each > method that a user currently has available for delivering a message > appropriate to that use case. I think I understand what you mean, but could you perhaps give a more specific example? The problem I've found in writing those scenarios was that there is a huge number of configuration permutations. Hence they're currently rather general. Any suggestions for how to manage the complexity in generating a large number of similar (but subtly different) scenarios would be appreciated. I had considered rewriting the document in the form of a table whose columns represent different aspects of the scenario and whose rows correspond to each scenario, e.g.: Sender address | Recipient address | Forwarding? | Mailing list? ---------------------------------------------------------------- alice@a.com | bob@b.com | No | No alice@a.com | bob@b.com | Yes, by Bob | No Given suitable explanations of what each column means this might make it more manageable. Any thoughts? At the moment the document isn't very good, but given some more work and ideas I'm sure it can be improved. Thanks Andrew --__--__-- Message: 18 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:43:29 -0500 Andrew Akehurst wrote: > > In other words, the use cases there will need to be split into each > > method that a user currently has available for delivering a message > > appropriate to that use case. > > I think I understand what you mean, but could you perhaps give a more > specific example? My take on it is that your document talks about what the users do, and what their intentions are. I'm a protocol guy, so I don't have access to the users intentions. Therefore, the diagrams I need are diagrams of network boxes, and the protocols they use to interact. That is, machines on the network don't see intentions. They see data. When "bob" sends "alice" email, he may do so through any number of methods. Roaming, webmail, ISP, vpn, etc. All of those scenarios have the same intentions, but they also have drastically different implementation diagrams. > I had considered rewriting the document in the form of a table whose columns > represent different aspects of the scenario and whose rows correspond to > each scenario, e.g.: > > Sender address | Recipient address | Forwarding? | Mailing list? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > alice@a.com | bob@b.com | No | No > alice@a.com | bob@b.com | Yes, by Bob | No Again, you're focussing on intentions. This makes it difficult to figure out what to do. It also makes it difficult to talk about it on the list, as the situations are wide-open for personal interpretation. "Well, MY mailing list works, and YOURS doesn't, so I don't see why you would want to change anything..." Keeping things on a protocol level means that personal issues are largely avoided. It also means that you have something concrete to talk about: "Box A talks to box B, using protocol C, which has fields D, E, and F, used to send messages. Field F can be forged undetectably, so we propose solution G to address that forgery..." In contrast, a "mailing list" means many different things to different people. Such lists are implemented and configured differently, all due to the intentions of the administrator. This means that no one can agree on the definition of a "mailing list", as everyone uses them in slightly different manners. Alan DeKok. --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg End of Asrg Digest --Boundary_(ID_7J4ff3ZNXwJa1opmgTbPFg)-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 15:45:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06921 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDTr-0007B8-4Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7KjJ0V027588 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:45:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDTq-0007At-Ux for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:18 -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 PAA06902 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDTp-0002f8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDTp-0002f5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDTa-00078b-Ux; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDSq-00077N-Bx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:44:16 -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 PAA06857 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:44:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDSo-0002ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:44:14 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDSo-0002eX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:44:14 -0500 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (rtp-vpn1-900.cisco.com [10.82.227.132]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hA7Khdxh006915; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:43:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031107124049.03fbfea8@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: michael From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: <3FABDB0A.4080008@cis.upenn.edu> References: <3FABDB0A.4080008@cis.upenn.edu> 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, 07 Nov 2003 12:43:38 -0800 Status: O Michael, all I have been lurking on asrg@ietf.org, reviewing your archives and carefully following your postings over the past few weeks. I'll be in Minneapolis from Sunday night through Wednesday morning and would like to talk to other ASRG people who are there. Mark At 09:48 AM 11/7/2003, michael wrote: >Hello, > >Would some of the active members of the group like to meet during the IETF >meeting in Minneapolis, MN for coffee or the like? I'm sure there are a >number of folks watching the discussion (myself included) who would like >to discuss the current drafts and proposals with the authors and others >interested. > >Michael May > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing 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 Nov 7 16:18:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08050 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDzb-00019b-8y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA7LI7WU004429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:18:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDzb-00019M-3v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:07 -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 QAA08015 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDzZ-00035y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDzY-00035v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDzV-00016x-Jc; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIDyV-00012P-TJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:17:01 -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 QAA07958 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIDyS-00034S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:16:56 -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 1AIDyR-00034K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:16:56 -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 1AIE0f-0004vq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:19:13 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:43:38 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031107124049.03fbfea8@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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, 07 Nov 2003 16:19:13 -0500 Status: O Mark Baugher wrote: > I have been lurking on asrg@ietf.org, reviewing your archives and > carefully following your postings over the past few weeks. I'll be in > Minneapolis from Sunday night through Wednesday morning and would like to > talk to other ASRG people who are there. Let's tentatively say the lobby, 6:15 pm. I'll be a 6'5" guy with blonde hair, wearing glasses. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 7 23:53:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22434 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIL66-0007HF-Ct for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:53:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA84rIGR027967 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:53:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIL66-0007H0-7T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:53:18 -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 XAA22430 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIL63-0000hK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:53:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIL62-0000hF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:53:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIL5o-0007Eq-VG; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIL51-0007E9-0W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:11 -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 XAA22420 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIL4x-0000h6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 -0500 Received: from sneakemail.com ([207.106.87.13] helo=monkey.sneakemail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIL4x-0000gy-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 13632 invoked by uid 501); 8 Nov 2003 04:51:28 -0000 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting Encoding: 8bit From: "John Stanley" Message-ID: <4869-35631@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: 8 Nov 2003 04:51:28 -0000 Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok aland-at-ox.org" Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting > Mark Baugher wrote: > > I have been lurking on asrg@ietf.org, reviewing your archives and > > carefully following your postings over the past few weeks. I'll be in > > Minneapolis from Sunday night through Wednesday morning and would like to > > talk to other ASRG people who are there. > > Let's tentatively say the lobby, 6:15 pm. I'll be a 6'5" guy with > blonde hair, wearing glasses. > > Alan DeKok. Ok... Maybe I'm missing something here... WHICH DAY?? ... John L. Stanley _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 8 09:20:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16603 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AITwt-0007jd-MD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:20:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA8EKN9F029729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:20:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AITwt-0007jQ-Ec for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:20:23 -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 JAA16599 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AITwr-0007Yf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AITwr-0007Ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AITwY-0007gv-JM; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:20:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AITwI-0007gC-Hg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:19:46 -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 JAA16579 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AITwG-0007YG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:19:44 -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 1AITwG-0007YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:19:44 -0500 Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AITyb-000551-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:22:09 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting: Tuesday, 6:15pm, lobby Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Nov 2003 09:22:09 -0500 Status: O I realized that my post about suggested meeting didn't specify a day. A number of people will be there only Monday through Wednesday, and Monday PM has work groups scheduled. So my suggestion is Tuesday PM, 6:15 lobby. The lobby isn't big, but as an anchor point, I'll be the tall guy, blonde hair, red beard, and glasses. If there's more than one person matching that description at IETF, I'd like to meet the other ones... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 8 10:26:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18985 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIUyZ-0001tr-96 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:26:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA8FQBtN007297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:26:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIUyZ-0001tc-35 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:26:11 -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 KAA18976 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIUyW-0000Ti-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:26:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIUyW-0000Tf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:26:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIUyP-0001qR-6u; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIUxi-0001p1-0q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:25:18 -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 KAA18919 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIUxf-0000Ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:25:15 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIUxf-0000ST-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:25:15 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA8FUrf27975; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:30:54 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <76275284117.20031108072431@brandenburg.com> To: "Alan DeKok" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 58th IETF Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:43:38 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031107124049.03fbfea8@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:24:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Alan, AD> Let's tentatively say the lobby, 6:15 pm. that's in the middle of the opening reception. perhaps it would work better to suggest something like monday night dinner? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 8 22:56:04 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06011 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIgfy-0005Cq-6T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:55:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA93tkJv019995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:55:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIgfy-0005CN-1R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:55:46 -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 WAA06000 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIgfu-0001wn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:55:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIgfu-0001wk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:55:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIgfG-0005A5-Mj; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIgen-00059b-Ov for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:54:34 -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 WAA05984 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIgek-0001wS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:54:30 -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 1AIgej-0001wE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:54:29 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.219.178]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO200K8JG5LFV@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 03:53:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FADBA46.5080201@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] 3. Requirements - Privacy, Anonimity and related issues - Related Internet 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: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:53:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O There is an Internet draft submitted by the CDT outlines some of the policy considerations for designing technologies such as privacy, anonimity, etc. It does not give answers, only raises questions. The draft is at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morris-policy-considerations-00.txt Should any of these be incorporated into the requirements document of the ASRG by reference? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 9 13:36:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05758 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIuPt-0005om-8m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:36:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA9Ia5bL022354 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:36:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIuPt-0005oT-4s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:36:05 -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 NAA05734 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIuPr-00058s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIuPq-00058o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:36:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIuOs-0005lV-Va; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIuNw-0005kp-UX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:34:04 -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 NAA05680 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIuNu-00057l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:34:02 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIuNt-00057J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:34:01 -0500 Received: from cb (c-67-166-198-61.client.comcast.net[67.166.198.61]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20031109183330014005oa7me>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:33:30 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <20031107001030.GN601@f-prot.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registration Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 9 Nov 2003 12:33:48 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I have a number of friends who regularly send technical articles to me from publications. These typically show up in my inbox with the title of the article. So far so good. Now, one publication puts its own email address as the return address, so if I were to reply, my reply would go to the publication and not the sender. Others send the reply with the return address of the sender. Both of these approaches cause difficulties, but not the same difficulty. In the first case, it is annoying because if I wish to thank my friend, by replying, I get to send my thanks down a rat hole at the magazine. In the second case, because my friend's email address is not on the same email system as the magazine, we have what looks like an open relay kind of behavior. The message comes from interestingarticle at magazine.com, but the response would go to jsmith at smith.com. I might well have a consent agreement with jsmith, so as far as I am concerned mail that comes to me from the magazine under his name would be acceptable - even desired. General mail from the magazine (solicitations, etc.) is not acceptable. Have we considered in our consent framework the ability to have trusted mail that has been sent under the auspices of one person, even though the actual source of the content is from an entirely different source? If this addressed somewhere else already, then apologies. The archive is getting to be a good size! Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 9 14:45:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07479 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvV1-0001Ka-T8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA9JjRCr005105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvV1-0001KA-Ld for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:27 -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 OAA07462 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvUy-00062v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvUy-00062r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvUd-0001Ct-FN; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvUa-0001CD-4W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:00 -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 OAA07452 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvUX-00062a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:44:57 -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 1AIvUW-00062Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:44:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.219.178]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO300DKIO4GXG@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:43:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FAE98DE.4030007@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, 09 Nov 2003 14:43:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O 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 Nov 9 15:37:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07478 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvV1-0001KZ-Sr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA9JjRqE005103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvV1-0001K9-Ka for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:27 -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 OAA07463 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvUy-00062y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvUy-00062s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvUc-0001Cj-TR; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIvTz-0001Br-Jn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:44:23 -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 OAA07446 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIvTw-00062B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:44:20 -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 1AIvTv-00061o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:44:19 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-420.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.219.178]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO300ADTO4WND@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:43:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FAE98EF.2070705@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 - Call for Volunteers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:43:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Dear Group Members, The group currently has a shortage of volunteers to take care of various tasks. A lot of items on the research agenda (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm) and the work item list (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_work_items.htm) need people to take care of them. If you would like to contribute some of you time please let the group know on the list, or email the chairs off-list. Any time and help you can give would be great. Additionally, we would like to bring to your attention that three of the foundational documents - the requirements document, the technical considerations document and the consent framework need comments and review. Please do not hesitate to participate in on-list discussions about these documents, or contact us off-list. Current drafts can be found at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/7/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html Any other suggestions for the group would be appreciated, please either post them to the list or email the chairs off-list. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 00:22:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26001 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJ4VE-0006L3-OU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAA5MGet024361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJ4VE-0006Kq-KR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:16 -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 AAA25991 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJ4VC-0006jQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJ4VB-0006jN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJ4Uz-0006HE-H4; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJ4UP-0006Gr-HY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:21:25 -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 AAA25967 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJ4UM-0006ip-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:21:22 -0500 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJ4UM-0006im-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:21:22 -0500 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 1AJ4UJ-0001Ak-1N; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:21:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registration Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: To: "Christopher Bird" From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: 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: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:20:52 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > I have a number of friends who regularly send technical articles to me > from publications. These typically show up in my inbox with the title > of > the article. So far so good. > > Now, one publication puts its own email address as the return address, > so if I were to reply, my reply would go to the publication and not the > sender. Others send the reply with the return address of the sender. > I might well have a consent agreement with jsmith, so as far as I am > concerned mail that comes to me from the magazine under his name would > be acceptable - even desired. General mail from the magazine > (solicitations, etc.) is not acceptable. > > Have we considered in our consent framework the ability to have trusted > mail that has been sent under the auspices of one person, even though > the actual source of the content is from an entirely different source? I think we're working on the assumption that the most recent sender/forwarder is the entity that needs to be trusted. But in that case, why do one publisher's articles have the magazine's return address on them, if jsmith sent the mail? It sounds to me as though jsmith has hit a button saying "send a friend this article", rather than forwarding it himself. In that case, it's very difficult to build a strong trust relationship of any kind (without permitting a lot more mail from the publisher than you might intend), but a hashcash token might be sufficient. -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 10 08:11:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18484 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJBpB-00033d-DL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAADBLK4011749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJBpB-00033Q-8D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:21 -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 IAA18461 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJBpA-0004Fl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJBp9-0004Fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJBor-0002zn-Qu; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJBo2-0002yz-1i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:10:10 -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 IAA18426 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJBo0-0004FM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:10:09 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJBo0-0004Ek-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:10:08 -0500 Received: from cb (c-67-166-198-61.client.comcast.net[67.166.198.61]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <20031110130938016009nt58e>; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:09:38 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" To: "'Jonathan Morton'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registration Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3A759.A752DF60" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:09:59 -0600 Status: O This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3A759.A752DF60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan describes the situation perfectly. Jsmith (in my example) does exactly what Jonathan outlined. So the scenario goes that jsmith the subscriber says please mail this to my friend Chris. Now looking at this from all points of view. It is in the economic interest of the magazine to make sure that I have every opportunity to subscribe and not just freeload on jsmith's subscription. It is in jsmith's interest to keep sending me the articles (because they give us something to talk about when hoisting a pint)m it is in my interest because I am learning about something or seeing a point of view that I have never had before. So in some sense, I think that the piece should come jointly from the magazine and jsmith. I have a consent agreement with jsmith, and this item should be under that agreement. Of course getting the publications to buy off is a different issue. I think it is probably quite important that the consent agreement not hop from jsmith to the magazine. Just because jsmith has emailed me something under our agreement does not give the 3rd party license in any sense to use that agreement for anything at all. (I suspect that some of the cleverer people in this group can come up with great counter examples.) Regards Chris the content is from an entirely different source? > > I think we're working on the assumption that the most recent > sender/forwarder is the entity that needs to be trusted. > > But in that case, why do one publisher's articles have the magazine's > return address on them, if jsmith sent the mail? It sounds to me as > though jsmith has hit a button saying "send a friend this article", > rather than forwarding it himself. In that case, it's very difficult > to build a strong trust relationship of any kind (without permitting a > lot more mail from the publisher than you might intend), but a hashcash > token might be sufficient. > ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3A759.A752DF60 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Christopher Bird (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net) (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net).vcf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Christopher Bird (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net) (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net).vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bird;Christopher FN:Christopher Bird (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net) = (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net) ORG:The Network Effect TITLE:Independent Consultant TEL;WORK;VOICE:(214) 764-6305 TEL;CELL;VOICE:(214) 236-8373 TEL;WORK;FAX:(214) 764-6301 ADR;WORK:;;4020 N. Macarthur # 122-322;Irving;TX;75038;United States of = America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:4020 N. Macarthur # = 122-322=3D0D=3D0AIrving, TX 75038=3D0D=3D0AUnited States of Amer=3D ica EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:cbird@thenetworkeffect.net REV:20031002T150742Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C3A759.A752DF60-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 09:45:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21283 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDI0-000802-Ky for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAAEjCnq030743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDI0-0007zl-FA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:12 -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 JAA21218 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJDHy-0005LM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJDHy-0005LJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDHq-0007vw-NE; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDHH-0007vD-T2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:44:28 -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 JAA21187 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJDHF-0005Kf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:44:26 -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 1AJDHF-0005Kc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:44:25 -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 1AJDJu-0005dl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:47:10 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:20:52 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, 10 Nov 2003 09:47:10 -0500 Status: O Jonathan Morton wrote: > > Have we considered in our consent framework the ability to have trusted > > mail that has been sent under the auspices of one person, even though > > the actual source of the content is from an entirely different source? > > I think we're working on the assumption that the most recent > sender/forwarder is the entity that needs to be trusted. See RFC 2487 (SMTP + TLS). Everyone who handles the message needs to be trusted. But you can only determine/prove trust with the person you're currently talking to. This is a problem... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 09:45:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21319 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDIS-00084Y-2E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAAEjeAo031024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJDIR-00084J-US for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:39 -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 JAA21269 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJDIQ-0005PA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:38 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJDBx-0005HW-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:38:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AJCzg-0002mZ-7F for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:26:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJCzS-0006wO-56; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJCyh-0006vR-Ug for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:25:16 -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 JAA20641 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:25:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJCyf-00058r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:25:13 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJCye-00058o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:25:12 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AJCyd-0007mX-Ml; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:25:11 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registration To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Christopher Bird" 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, 10 Nov 2003 14:25:11 +0000 Status: O > Jonathan describes the situation perfectly. Jsmith (in my example) does > exactly what Jonathan outlined. So the scenario goes that jsmith the > subscriber says please mail this to my friend Chris. > > > Now looking at this from all points of view. It is in the economic > interest of the magazine to make sure that I have every opportunity to > subscribe and not just freeload on jsmith's subscription. It is in > jsmith's interest to keep sending me the articles (because they give us > something to talk about when hoisting a pint)m it is in my interest > because I am learning about something or seeing a point of view that I > have never had before. > So in some sense, I think that the piece should come jointly from the > magazine and jsmith. I have a consent agreement with jsmith, and this > item should be under that agreement. Of course getting the publications > to buy off is a different issue. I think it is probably quite important > that the consent agreement not hop from jsmith to the magazine. Just > because jsmith has emailed me something under our agreement does not > give the 3rd party license in any sense to use that agreement for > anything at all. (I suspect that some of the cleverer people in this > group can come up with great counter examples.) > But you *are* asking that jsmith be allowed to give your consent to a third party. The only easy way of doing this that I can see is to employ a special email address only for your interaction with jsmith. jsmith can then give this to whoever they like. I daresay other kinds of consent tokens might be useful - but they'd require that the publisher (in this case) knew what to do with them. That would be the publishers problem. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 21:02:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29389 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJNrA-0005uR-Pt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAB22CP2022708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJNrA-0005uB-L2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:12 -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 VAA29383 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:01:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJNr8-0002QG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJNr7-0002QC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:02:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJNq2-0005kB-1s; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJNpU-0005ig-MM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:00:28 -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 VAA29305 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJNpS-0002Mq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:00:26 -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 1AJNpR-0002M8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:00:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-379-485.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.196.154]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO600JT507SOX@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:59:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FB04298.10507@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 - LMAP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 10 Nov 2003 20:59:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Just a reminder that a draft of the LMAP discussion document has been posted and is available at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt From the abstract: ------------ " The Lightweight MTA Authentication Protocol (LMAP) [ref] has been proposed as a method to help address the spam problem. That document describes the design of the protocol. This document discusses the applicability, and the costs and benefits of wide-spread deployment of that protocol." ------------ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 22:53:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA03355 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJPac-000537-QQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAB3rELS019403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJPac-00052s-K7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:14 -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 WAA03319 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJPaZ-0003yr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJPaY-0003yo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJPaP-00050T-9W; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJPZp-00050D-BG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:25 -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 WAA03306 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJPZl-0003yH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJPZl-0003yE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:52:21 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAB3qLrX025358; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:52:21 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131BE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:52:21 -0800 Status: O > AD wrote: > > I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be > > outside of the scope of this group. > > Right. Lying about opt-in is not a social issue, the inability to detect lying is a protocol defect which is easy to cure. All that is required is for the mailing list to obtain an authentication code value from the user during the opt-in process. This value can then be returned in each message sent, proving that the recipient did opt in and that the message concerned should therefore be whitelisted. I can circulate the draft again if people are interested in finding solutions. We are dealling with a criminal deterence/criminal prosecution problem here. All problems will appear to be 'social' because that is what spam is, a social problem manifest in technology. What should be outside the scope of the group is purely social solutions, but even there I am skeptical as there being a genuine exception. The lawyers seem to be being quite effective in reducing the rate of growth of spam, so why not consider technology to help the lawyers do their work? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 10 23:24:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04659 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJQ4X-0007J6-9b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAB4O9eO028082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJQ4X-0007Ir-3Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:09 -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 XAA04635 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJQ4V-0004Sv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJQ4U-0004Sp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJQ4P-0007F1-BA; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJQ3t-0007Ec-Ha for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:29 -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 XAA04614 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJQ3r-0004SJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:27 -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 1AJQ3r-0004S6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:23:27 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-369-018.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.155.224]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO600FLJ6U44K@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:22:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131BE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Jon Kyme'" , ASRG Message-id: <3FB0641C.8050701@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131BE@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: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:22:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>AD wrote: >> >>> I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be >>>outside of the scope of this group. >> >>Right. > > > > Lying about opt-in is not a social issue, the inability to detect lying is a > protocol defect which is easy to cure. > > All that is required is for the mailing list to obtain an authentication > code value from the user during the opt-in process. This value can then be > returned in each message sent, proving that the recipient did opt in and > that the message concerned should therefore be whitelisted. > So this would be kind of like C/R except for the consent token would be returned together with each list message. Can the CRI proposal be adjusted for this perhaps? > I can circulate the draft again if people are interested in finding > solutions. > Please, we would love to see it. > We are dealling with a criminal deterence/criminal prosecution problem here. > All problems will appear to be 'social' because that is what spam is, a > social problem manifest in technology. > > What should be outside the scope of the group is purely social solutions, > but even there I am skeptical as there being a genuine exception. The > lawyers seem to be being quite effective in reducing the rate of growth of > spam, so why not consider technology to help the lawyers do their work? I would have to agree with Phillip that the social aspects of the spam problem cannot be ignored. While we are considering mainly technical solutions, nevertheless social, economic, legal, etc. issues come into play as well, and many times will affect technical issues. Therefore, it would be hard to say that we should not consider social issues at all, rather as in Phillip's example we should look at social issues and see how they can fit with the technical issues. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 11 03:52:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24478 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJUG2-0005h8-Ea for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAB8qIHn021891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJUG2-0005h0-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:18 -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 DAA24472 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJUFz-0007iY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJUFz-0007iV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJUFl-0005eo-1V; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJUFP-0005e6-Gm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:51:39 -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 DAA24468 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJUFM-0007iO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:51:36 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJUFM-0007iL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:51:36 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AJUFN-000100-ND; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FB0641C.8050701@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Input Needed To: "Yakov Shafranovich" 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: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:51:37 +0000 Status: O > > > >>AD wrote: > >> > >>> I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be > >>>outside of the scope of this group. > >> > >>Right. > > > > > > > > Lying about opt-in is not a social issue, the inability to detect lying > is a > > protocol defect which is easy to cure. It is too a social issue :-). "lying" must surely imply an intention to deceive - which needs a deceiver, a deceived and the relationship between them. This is social. That a protocol doesn't support the evaluation of 'opted-in' assertions - that's the technical problem. Lying isn't the root problem - it's a consequence. A technical defect that is exploited is the problem. This is not just hair-splitting - the lie is a surface feature, we're interested in the underlying problem. [snip] >Therefore, it > would be hard to say that we should not consider social issues at all, > rather as in Phillip's example we should look at social issues and see > how they can fit with the technical issues. > I expect that we'll find that it's generally the case that a social issue (good / bad) will depend on a technical point. So I'd suspect any use of psycho/social (or legal?) terminology implies a weakness (temporary) in technical definition. In this instance the psycho/social "Lying about opt-in" is subsumed in the more technical "Inadequate opt-in - no actual opt-in - deceptive opt-in - single opt-in without confirmation" (Actually, the more I think about it, the less I'm sure that I know what "deceptive opt-in" means. Is it something like "unverifiable opt-in assertions"?) We must *consider* social aspects - and by this method identify technical issues. I guess this is personal, but I really don't see the advantage in much talk about "lying" when we've already got "Inadequate/deceptive" which may be more powerful and inclusive. I believe this will always be the case - emotive language will add nothing except redundancy and may make the job more difficult. Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 11 11:23:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08018 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJbHt-0003hF-Cf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hABGMfNq014203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJbHt-0003h0-7N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:41 -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 LAA07997 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJbHs-0005NF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJbHr-0005NC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJbHE-0003Zq-VC; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJbGe-0003Yl-Fs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:21:24 -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 LAA07937 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJbGd-0005MZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:21:23 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJbGc-0005MW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:21:22 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hABGLKuG019593; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:21:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:21:20 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131C2@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4 Forwarding, Consent frameworks and interest registra tion 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, 11 Nov 2003 08:21:15 -0800 Status: O > See RFC 2487 (SMTP + TLS). Everyone who handles the message needs > to be trusted. But you can only determine/prove trust with the person > you're currently talking to. This is a problem... I don't think this needs to be a major problem. We could view forwarding as simply a different form of mailing list subscription. The result is very similar, I receive a stream of emails from a particular source. A consent registration scheme for email would be equally applicable to mailing list forwarding. So I would not accept the forwarded mail unless there was a consent token. If mail was forwarded without such a token it would trigger the consent request mechanism. There is still a difference in the trust model. In effect I would be relying on the forwarding mail server to also act as my spam filter, at the very least I would be relying on the forwarding mail server to provide me with the information I would require to run through my own spam filtering system and to trust that it is provided correctly. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 15:55:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09089 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK21U-00046S-Kh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hACKtWt7015768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK21U-00046F-GC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:32 -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 PAA09081 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK21S-00064b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:30 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK21S-00064Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK20z-00040d-Vj; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:55:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK20I-0003wm-Fl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:54:18 -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 PAA09014 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK20G-00062z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:54:16 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK20E-00062A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:54:15 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hACKrq4u016979; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:53:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:53:52 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D0@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample 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, 12 Nov 2003 12:53:50 -0800 Status: O I think this is a somewhat different case. The Zumabot was designed to suppress discussion, this seems to be designed to attack. It is possible that this is another spammer, or it could be some guy with an inadequately dimensioned sexual characteristic who purchased the product, was disastisfied and is responding by trying to attack the spammer through mailing list spam. This is still spam but it is pretty low tech spam, we don't have evidence for spam infrastructure. It would be different if this had been sent out to a couple of million addresses. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:06 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample > > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Below is a spam sample sent directly to the ASRG list and > > intercepted in the admin interface. My question to you is what > > purpose does this particular spam serve? > > Emotional satisfaction. > > > Is this simply a case of two spammers fighting it out, or perhaps an > > attack on someone? > > Or crazy people. It's happened before. > > http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html > > Usenet, Turkey, and Armenia... > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 16:18:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10195 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK2Na-0007ap-0s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hACLIL9O029181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK2NZ-0007aa-SN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:21 -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 QAA10189 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK2NY-0006YU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK2NX-0006YR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK2NF-0007YJ-1V; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK2Mq-0007Xa-7w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:36 -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 QAA10163 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK2Mn-0006Y5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:33 -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 1AK2Mn-0006Xj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:33 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-868.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.143.158]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO900BTBCE333@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:15:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D0@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB2A2F8.3050506@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D0@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, 12 Nov 2003 16:15:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Thanks for the comments, I don't know how many people this was sent to, perhaps someone in the group can check that specific message against Postini or Brighmail. In any case, the IP is blacklisted in SPEWS and SpamCop. A quick search on Google reveals a bunch of web message boards that have the same or similar message, and the email appears in to have been posted on Usenet a bunch of times as well. So far it seems that this message is being posted to public places such as mailing lists and message boards, and not being sent to millions of people. However, my concern is whether this is a sign that people will begin to attack spam via spam, kind of like a story a while back where a virus was sent to patch a hole explotiable by another virus. Yakov Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think this is a somewhat different case. The Zumabot was designed to > suppress discussion, this seems to be designed to attack. > > It is possible that this is another spammer, or it could be some guy with an > inadequately dimensioned sexual characteristic who purchased the product, > was disastisfied and is responding by trying to attack the spammer through > mailing list spam. > > This is still spam but it is pretty low tech spam, we don't have evidence > for spam infrastructure. It would be different if this had been sent out to > a couple of million addresses. > > Phill > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:06 PM >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample >> >> >>Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>>Below is a spam sample sent directly to the ASRG list and >>>intercepted in the admin interface. My question to you is what >>>purpose does this particular spam serve? >> >> Emotional satisfaction. >> >> >>>Is this simply a case of two spammers fighting it out, or perhaps an >>>attack on someone? >> >> Or crazy people. It's happened before. >> >> http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html >> >> Usenet, Turkey, and Armenia... >> >> Alan DeKok. >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 17:44:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13867 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK3ie-00060a-99 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hACMiCIp023090 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK3ie-00060L-4e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:12 -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 RAA13829 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK3ib-0000AZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK3ib-0000AV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK3iT-0005x8-AE; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK3hW-0005wf-IA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:43:02 -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 RAA13788 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK3hT-00009W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:42:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK3hS-00009T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:42:59 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hACMgulD020962; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D2@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample 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, 12 Nov 2003 14:42:55 -0800 Status: O > However, my concern is whether this is a sign that people > will begin to > attack spam via spam, kind of like a story a while back where a virus > was sent to patch a hole explotiable by another virus. I try not to voice my concerns in public, they tend to be realised sooner rather than later. When I started looking at spam seriously 24 months ago I wrote an internal report which predicted that spammers would start to use trojan horse techniques. So the virus problem would quickly become a problem of large numbers of zombie machines captured by spammers that are then used to propagate themselves through the spammer sender list instead of the local address book. A few months ago we started to see this exact signature, the result being that instead of receiving a spate of virus infection attempts every few months I now receive several hundred trojan infection attempts per week. Viruses are dead, they no longer use the address book to replicate, the replication list is external and has millions of victims listed. A spammer can pick and choose the resources they want, Linux boxes were not usually targetted by viruses, the population is too thin to allow much propagation. Now that each machine can launch millions of attacks rather than a few hundred we are seeing significant numbers of compromised linux boxes. These tend to be a more interesting target for a spammer or DDoS cracker since they are more likely to be connected to high capacity pipes and less likely to be listed on blacklists of residential dialup/cable modem lines. One of the consequences of this is that IP addresses are no longer a very useful identifier. The spammer can create new addresses faster than they are listed. We have to pull this out somehow. SPF/RMX do actually provide us with some traction here. You can hijack an IP address by hijacking the machine. But machines hooked up with dns names that resolve to them are a different issue. Phill Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 19:32:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19424 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5PH-0005sW-Js for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD0WJYa022590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5PH-0005sH-Fh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:19 -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 TAA19394 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5PF-0001yH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5PF-0001yE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5P0-0005nH-Ex; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5OU-0005ml-0O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:31:30 -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 TAA19372 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:31:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5OS-0001xt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:31:28 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5OR-0001xi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:31:27 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAD0VR4u022854; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:31:27 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP 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, 12 Nov 2003 16:31:25 -0800 Status: O The problem is not simply getting the spec agreed, the harder part is to get deployment to take place. The group needs a media strategy, and no, the current situation is not a strategy. The key thing to avoid here is to oversell the technology. It is much better to promise little and deliver some than to promise great things and deliver merely good results. It is all an expectations game. LMAP is clearly not going to eliminate all spam, why is it important then? The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, impersonation spam. The second thing is to make sure that the concepts being communicated are clear. Please do not talk to journalists about joe jobs, if you are lucky they will ask you to explain what you mean, more likely they go and publish something you will regret later, like a story about how you are going to stop Steve Jobs from sending spam. The third point is to have a strategy to make sure that the credit for the work is fairly shared. The media attention is doing this group absolutely no good as far as the internal workings of the group are concerned. What is needed here is a set of talking points, and a set of attributed quotations that journalists can work into their stories. It is not necessary for everyone to interact with the media directly. >From my point of view it is currently very difficult for me to comment on the ASRG work in a way that leads to predictable and favorable media coverage. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:00 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP > > > Just a reminder that a draft of the LMAP discussion document has been > posted and is available at: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-i rtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt From the abstract: ------------ " The Lightweight MTA Authentication Protocol (LMAP) [ref] has been proposed as a method to help address the spam problem. That document describes the design of the protocol. This document discusses the applicability, and the costs and benefits of wide-spread deployment of that protocol." ------------ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing 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 Nov 12 20:07:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20755 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5wy-00080l-FT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD178Fe030786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5wy-00080O-3K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:08 -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 UAA20729 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5ww-0002VL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5wv-0002VI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:07:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK5wr-0007uZ-J6; Wed, 12 Nov 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 1AK5w3-0007tG-8C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:06:11 -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 UAA20700 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5w0-0002UH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:06:08 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK5w0-0002UE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:06:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 91141 invoked by uid 1013); 13 Nov 2003 01:06:07 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP Message-ID: <20031113010607.GY51332@Space.Net> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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, 13 Nov 2003 02:06:07 +0100 Status: O On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:31:25PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The problem is not simply getting the spec agreed, the harder part is to get > deployment to take place. I'd posted a short note about that problem to the RIPE antispam list. I'd ask how much (money, time) the postmasters and CEOs would spend for a solution. Also, how hard it would be to integrate solutions like e.g. LMAP into their administrative tools. No response (but one) :( Without feedback from that people most antispam proposals are probably academic :( IMHO it is important to learn how processes that are affected by antispam proposals are handled in most companies/ISPs. The ease of integration and the costs involved will be a major criterion about hop of flop. \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 Nov 12 23:23:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26854 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK911-0003N3-I1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD4NVWh012953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK911-0003Mq-Eb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:31 -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 XAA26836 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK90z-0005Gr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK90z-0005Go-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK90W-0003J2-Im; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK90U-0003Ir-FR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:22:58 -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 XAA26827 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK90S-0005Ge-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:22:56 -0500 Received: from ns34.webmasters.com ([207.142.134.41]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK90R-0005GW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:22:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 9207 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2003 04:23:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO A3) (dave@flowerdog.com@66.229.76.120) by ns34.webmasters.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2003 04:23:50 -0000 Message-ID: <002701c3a99d$bdea89d0$0300a8c0@A3> From: "Dave Atherton" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031113010607.GY51332@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP 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: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:22:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Stumpf" Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:06 PM > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:31:25PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > The problem is not simply getting the spec agreed, the harder part is to get > > deployment to take place. > > I'd posted a short note about that problem to the RIPE antispam list. > I'd ask how much (money, time) the postmasters and CEOs would spend > for a solution. Also, how hard it would be to integrate solutions like > e.g. LMAP into their administrative tools. > > No response (but one) :( > > Without feedback from that people most antispam proposals are probably > academic :( > IMHO it is important to learn how processes that are affected by > antispam proposals are handled in most companies/ISPs. The ease of > integration and the costs involved will be a major criterion about > hop of flop. A likely first step is to persuade the makers of the most commonly used affected software to implement the necessary changes. Once that is accomplished, I see 2 potential ways to get the new feature put into common use: 1. Persuade a few major ISPs and private nets to begin using it (and to encourage or expect others to use it). This would require some significant lobbying. "It's not what you know but who you know." -OR- 2. Wait until some major event, such as a sharp increase in spam or joe-jobs, to cause admins and CIOs to ask, "What do we have handy to deal with this problem?" Then, the presence of the new feature (such as LMAP) in existing or commonly available software could be proclaimed and admins would be inspired to use it. -Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 23:38:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27163 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9FA-00041e-9C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD4c8xf015465 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9F9-00041H-Aw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:07 -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 XAA27151 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:37:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9F7-0005Qq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9F6-0005Qn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9F3-0003xP-Ls; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9EU-0003r6-WC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:37:27 -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 XAA27148 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9ES-0005Qd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:37:24 -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 1AK9ES-0005QU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:37:24 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-868.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.143.158]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO900IECWTD6N@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:36:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP In-reply-to: <002701c3a99d$bdea89d0$0300a8c0@A3> To: Dave Atherton Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FB30A62.8040405@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031113010607.GY51332@Space.Net> <002701c3a99d$bdea89d0$0300a8c0@A3> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:36:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Dave Atherton wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Markus Stumpf" > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:06 PM > >>On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:31:25PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> >>>The problem is not simply getting the spec agreed, the harder part is to > > get > >>>deployment to take place. >> >>I'd posted a short note about that problem to the RIPE antispam list. >>I'd ask how much (money, time) the postmasters and CEOs would spend >>for a solution. Also, how hard it would be to integrate solutions like >>e.g. LMAP into their administrative tools. >> >>No response (but one) :( >> >>Without feedback from that people most antispam proposals are probably >>academic :( >>IMHO it is important to learn how processes that are affected by >>antispam proposals are handled in most companies/ISPs. The ease of >>integration and the costs involved will be a major criterion about >>hop of flop. > > > > A likely first step is to persuade the makers of the most commonly used > affected software to implement the necessary changes. Once that is > accomplished, I see 2 potential ways to get the new feature put into common > use: > > 1. Persuade a few major ISPs and private nets to begin using it (and to > encourage or expect others to use it). This would require some significant > lobbying. "It's not what you know but who you know." > -OR- > 2. Wait until some major event, such as a sharp increase in spam or > joe-jobs, to cause admins and CIOs to ask, "What do we have handy to deal > with this problem?" Then, the presence of the new feature (such as LMAP) in > existing or commonly available software could be proclaimed and admins would > be inspired to use it. > We still need work on the discussion draft and even more work on a combined protocol spefication. A lot of things are still in raw state, and need more work. Discussion draft available at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 23:39:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27196 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9G3-0004E4-8t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD4d3eH016238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9G3-0004Dp-4R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:03 -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 XAA27185 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9G0-0005RU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9G0-0005RR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9G1-0004BY-He; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9Ft-0004BI-9Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:53 -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 XAA27179 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9Fr-0005RI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:51 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9Fq-0005Qu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:50 -0500 Received: from d8ybj931 (69-44-73-131.wcg.net[69.44.73.131]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003111304381301300gid96e> (Authid: compwiz24@comcast.net); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c3a99f$f4edb860$640213ac@D8YBJ931> From: "Herr Vinny" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031113010607.GY51332@Space.Net> <002701c3a99d$bdea89d0$0300a8c0@A3> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP 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: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:38:14 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O We're going to wait a long time if we're going to wait for a sharp increase in spam. Spam is already estimated to be 12 billion+ emails/day, who's going to notice another billion or two? Personally, I think it might be better if we persuaded some major ISP's to take it up. Perhaps create some sort of demo, e.g. load a laptop with examples of popular mail servers, and demonstrate in front of admins how easy it is to configure a mail server to use LMAP? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Atherton" To: "ASRG" Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP > A likely first step is to persuade the makers of the most commonly used > affected software to implement the necessary changes. Once that is > accomplished, I see 2 potential ways to get the new feature put into common > use: > > 1. Persuade a few major ISPs and private nets to begin using it (and to > encourage or expect others to use it). This would require some significant > lobbying. "It's not what you know but who you know." > -OR- > 2. Wait until some major event, such as a sharp increase in spam or > joe-jobs, to cause admins and CIOs to ask, "What do we have handy to deal > with this problem?" Then, the presence of the new feature (such as LMAP) in > existing or commonly available software could be proclaimed and admins would > be inspired to use it. > > -Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 12 23:49:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27447 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9Pk-0004rA-V3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAD4n4gJ018662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9Pk-0004qv-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:04 -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 XAA27439 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9Pi-0005XD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9Pi-0005XA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9Ph-0004nK-3P; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AK9Pa-0004n6-KI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:48:54 -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 XAA27434 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AK9PY-0005X7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:48:52 -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 1AK9PX-0005Ws-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:48:52 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-868.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.143.158]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HO900ASCXA97Q@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:47:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP In-reply-to: <000d01c3a99f$f4edb860$640213ac@D8YBJ931> To: Herr Vinny Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FB30CBF.6040203@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031113010607.GY51332@Space.Net> <002701c3a99d$bdea89d0$0300a8c0@A3> <000d01c3a99f$f4edb860$640213ac@D8YBJ931> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:46:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Keep in mind that LMAP has not been fully defined yet. Herr Vinny wrote: > We're going to wait a long time if we're going to wait for a sharp increase > in spam. Spam is already estimated to be 12 billion+ emails/day, who's going > to notice another billion or two? > > Personally, I think it might be better if we persuaded some major ISP's to > take it up. Perhaps create some sort of demo, e.g. load a laptop with > examples of popular mail servers, and demonstrate in front of admins how > easy it is to configure a mail server to use LMAP? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Atherton" > To: "ASRG" > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP > > >>A likely first step is to persuade the makers of the most commonly used >>affected software to implement the necessary changes. Once that is >>accomplished, I see 2 potential ways to get the new feature put into > > common > >>use: >> >>1. Persuade a few major ISPs and private nets to begin using it (and to >>encourage or expect others to use it). This would require some > > significant > >>lobbying. "It's not what you know but who you know." >>-OR- >>2. Wait until some major event, such as a sharp increase in spam or >>joe-jobs, to cause admins and CIOs to ask, "What do we have handy to deal >>with this problem?" Then, the presence of the new feature (such as LMAP) > > in > >>existing or commonly available software could be proclaimed and admins > > would > >>be inspired to use it. >> >>-Dave > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 05:01:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18900 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKEHK-0006vQ-Ua for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADA0geX026621 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKEHG-0006v1-NO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:39 -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 FAA18877 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKEHC-0001vP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKEHC-0001vM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKEGh-0006sP-6H; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKEFh-0006li-0F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:59:01 -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 EAA18811 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKEFb-0001uk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:58:55 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKEFb-0001uc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:58:55 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id DAC173801C; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:58:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E033800B for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:58:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA11920; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:58:23 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] Message-ID: <20031113095823.GB11525@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:58:23 +0000 Status: O > The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, impersonation > spam. One point to consider: Anything that will eliminate impersonation spam will also have a drastic effect on computer worms. It might be easier to push a solution that will not only help with one problem (spam) but another (worms) as well. It will not eliminate either problem of course, but it will help with both. The reason this would work against worms is as follows: Many worms use the same methods as spamming software to forge the sender's identity, making it sometimes look to the recipient as if the sender is someone he already knows, this making it more likely he will believe the message and open/execute the attachment, activating the worm. The "worst" mail-borne worm incident was without any doubt the one involving W32/Sobig.F@mm. That problem got "solved" on its own, because the author included code to make the worm turn itself off globally on a specific date. What if the next worm author is not equally "considerate"? If the worm would not have been able to forge the identity of the sender, one can assume that fewer people would have fallen for it and fewer machines been infected and the problem would not have been as bad. Therefore my suggestion is that anyone arguing for the implementation of LMAP should not only point out the benefit with regard to spam, but also the beneficial effects regarding worms. This might for example make it easier to convince companies like Microsoft to endorse the proposal. -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 06:07:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20605 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKFJj-0002Ey-3Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADB7Fuk008606 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKFJi-0002Ej-SY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:14 -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 GAA20579 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKFJf-0002p9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKFJe-0002p6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKFJW-00028S-Pk; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKFJJ-00027X-4z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:51 -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 GAA20554 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKFJF-0002oe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:45 -0500 Received: from saci.ensmp.fr ([194.214.158.176]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKFJE-0002n7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:06:44 -0500 Received: from ensmp.fr (saci [194.214.158.176]) by saci.ensmp.fr (8.13.0.PreAlpha4/8.13.0.PreAlpha4/JMMC) with ESMTP id hADB6EiJ020024; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:06:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3FB365A6.2020302@ensmp.fr> From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz Organization: Ecole des Mines de Paris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: First draft of the ASRG-RMX Discussion paper References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:06:14 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Alan DeKok wrote: > I've posted the first draft of the ASRG-RMX discussion paper on the > combined proposal to the ASRG-RMX list. It's available on gmane, at: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx/260 > > I do not currently have sufficient time to discuss or defend the > document. If there are errors of fact, please email me with > references, and suggested replacement text. > 3.4 Message relaying and forwarding are affected by LMAP ... If the recipient C did desire the B->C forwarding, three workarounds are possible. ... 2) the user B could alter the .forward such that forwarded messages are reinjected with B's address in the return-path. For example, a .forward that was previously "C@example.com" might now read "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -oi C@example.com" Someone I talked to, remarked that this may create unmanageable bounces, if C@example.com address had an error (quota exceeded, unknown user...). A fourth possibility could be : 4) "forwarding" on B should bounce the message to A, indicating redirection address. So, it's up to A to send the message again to C@example.com > Any flames will be archived for later amusement. 8-) Jose-Marcio > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41 Ecole des Mines de Paris http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr 60, bd Saint Michel http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 10:09:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01024 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJ5p-0000jo-Pk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADF99Lc002830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJ5p-0000j8-DE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:09 -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 KAA00930 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJ5m-0006Ti-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJ5m-0006Tf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJ5h-0000fl-JE; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJ57-0000cY-8y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:25 -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 KAA00842 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJ55-0006T9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:23 -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 1AKJ54-0006Ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:22 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-365-868.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.143.158]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOA00D67PX113@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:05:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Fridrik Skulason'" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB39DAA.5030109@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D7@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: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:05:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hi, The following has some relevant information to this topic: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > What I could do which might help move us forward is to write a whitepaper > that has a table that lists the various incremental types of authentication > and accreditation that are possible in this space, the advantages and costs > associated with each. > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Fridrik Skulason [mailto:frisk@f-prot.com] >>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:58 AM >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] >> >> >> >>>The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of >> >>spam, impersonation >> >>>spam. >> >>One point to consider: Anything that will eliminate >>impersonation spam will >>also have a drastic effect on computer worms. It might be >>easier to push >>a solution that will not only help with one problem (spam) but another >>(worms) as well. It will not eliminate either problem of >>course, but it >>will help with both. >> >>The reason this would work against worms is as follows: Many worms use >>the same methods as spamming software to forge the sender's identity, >>making it sometimes look to the recipient as if the sender is someone >>he already knows, this making it more likely he will believe >>the message >>and open/execute the attachment, activating the worm. >> >>The "worst" mail-borne worm incident was without any doubt the one >>involving W32/Sobig.F@mm. That problem got "solved" on its >>own, because the >>author included code to make the worm turn itself off globally on a >>specific date. >> >>What if the next worm author is not equally "considerate"? >> >>If the worm would not have been able to forge the identity of >>the sender, >>one can assume that fewer people would have fallen for it and fewer >>machines been infected and the problem would not have been as bad. >> >>Therefore my suggestion is that anyone arguing for the implementation >>of LMAP should not only point out the benefit with regard to spam, but >>also the beneficial effects regarding worms. This might for example >>make it easier to convince companies like Microsoft to endorse the >>proposal. >> >>-- >>Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 >>Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 10:24:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02604 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJKQ-0002jn-PT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADFOE8V010519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJKQ-0002ja-Jf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:14 -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 KAA02571 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJKM-0006nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJKM-0006nZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJKD-0002ek-7a; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJJm-0002b9-EF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:34 -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 KAA02517 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJJj-0006mv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:31 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJJj-0006lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:31 -0500 Received: from dyn134-101.ietf58.ietf.org (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hADFTIf15523; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:29:18 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.22) Reply-To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <19045973686.20031113061423@brandenburg.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample In-Reply-To: <3FB28F54.9070608@solidmatrix.com> References: <3FB28F54.9070608@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: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:14:23 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov, YS> My question to you is what purpose does this YS> particular spam serve? We have been receiving some of them at the list, The same as as sending worms and virii. The same as making a prank or obscene phone call. Spam is not just selling something. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 10:25:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02670 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJLN-00030n-VJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADFPCaO011571 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJLG-0002xC-P4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:06 -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 KAA02654 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJLB-0006of-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJLB-0006oc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJLB-0002t1-CP; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKJKL-0002hm-RU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:09 -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 KAA02568 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJKJ-0006nV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:07 -0500 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKJKI-0006my-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:24:07 -0500 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:02:20 -0500 Status: O Phillip also gave a relevant presenation at the ASRG meeting in March: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/asrg-7/index.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:05 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Fridrik Skulason'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] > > > Hi, > > The following has some relevant information to this topic: > > http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presen > tation.pdf > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > What I could do which might help move us forward is to write a > > whitepaper that has a table that lists the various > incremental types > > of authentication and accreditation that are possible in > this space, > > the advantages and costs associated with each. > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Fridrik Skulason [mailto:frisk@f-prot.com] > >>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:58 AM > >>To: asrg@ietf.org > >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] > >> > >> > >> > >>>The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of > >> > >>spam, impersonation > >> > >>>spam. > >> > >>One point to consider: Anything that will eliminate > >>impersonation spam will > >>also have a drastic effect on computer worms. It might be > >>easier to push > >>a solution that will not only help with one problem (spam) > but another > >>(worms) as well. It will not eliminate either problem of > >>course, but it > >>will help with both. > >> > >>The reason this would work against worms is as follows: > Many worms use > >>the same methods as spamming software to forge the sender's > identity, > >>making it sometimes look to the recipient as if the sender > is someone > >>he already knows, this making it more likely he will believe the > >>message and open/execute the attachment, activating the worm. > >> > >>The "worst" mail-borne worm incident was without any doubt the one > >>involving W32/Sobig.F@mm. That problem got "solved" on its own, > >>because the author included code to make the worm turn itself off > >>globally on a specific date. > >> > >>What if the next worm author is not equally "considerate"? > >> > >>If the worm would not have been able to forge the identity of > >>the sender, > >>one can assume that fewer people would have fallen for it and fewer > >>machines been infected and the problem would not have been as bad. > >> > >>Therefore my suggestion is that anyone arguing for the > implementation > >>of LMAP should not only point out the benefit with regard > to spam, but > >>also the beneficial effects regarding worms. This might > for example > >>make it easier to convince companies like Microsoft to endorse the > >>proposal. > >> > >>-- > >>Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: > +354-540-7400 > >>Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: > +354-540-7401 > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 13 12:21:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09093 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKL9r-0006H6-MU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADHLRQr024120 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKL9r-0006Gx-J8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:27 -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 MAA09076 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKL9q-0001Jk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKL9p-0001Jh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKL9R-0006Ax-QD; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKL9G-0006Ai-BC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:50 -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 MAA09051 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKL9E-0001J6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:48 -0500 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKL9E-0001IZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:48 -0500 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:05:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Passing on the torch Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:58:54 -0500 Status: O I wish to inform the group that I am stepping down from my role as co-chair of the ASRG. The ASRG started with an email that I sent to Vern in January. We chartered the group in March and held a physical meeting co-located with the 56th IETF. Since then, the group has grown to over 600 members. The group is guided by a research agenda that includes three phases: understanding the problem, proposing solutions, and evaluating solutions. Based on this, the group has a work item list that includes about 20 research tasks and proposals, several of which have already been published as Internet Drafts. My vision for the ASRG was to provide a forum for contributors to anti-spam technology as well as expose the spam problem to researchers from other disciplines in order to spark collaboration and steer the anti-spam efforts around sound methodologies. The ASRG is currently fulfilling this vision and is on track to make meaningful contributions to anti-spam technology. At this juncture, I am comfortable with the momentum and direction of the ASRG. Yakov joined me as co-chair a month and a half ago and has worked diligently to help manage day-to-day operations. As I step down Yakov will be joined by an equally capable co-chair, John Levine. I am very confident that Yakov and John will continue to guide the ASRG towards fulfilling its vision. We will work together to ensure a seamless transition and I will be available for advice as necessary. By stepping down from this role, I am in no way stepping away from anti-spam research. I have spent the last few years focusing on email security and spam. Along the way, I started Spam Archive last November, then spoke about the need for spam research at the Spam Conference in January, and founded the ASRG in March. Beyond this, I've identified several critical needs. This change will allow me to focus more time on a number of other efforts that are important in solving the global spam problem. Firstly, it has become evident that while anti-spam technology is the core of local spam solutions, it must be coupled with other efforts in order to solve the global spam problem. These include legislative and user education/awareness efforts. I will spend time focusing on the interactions between these types of efforts and the underlying relationships that are necessary across organizations to achieve this. Secondly, I will continue to be an active member of the ASRG. Handing over the role of co-chair will allow me additional time to be more hands-on with particular work items. I am quite interested in helping to move forward with the RMX-type solutions. We formed a subgroup with the authors of these proposals and produced a discussion/evaluation paper about these approaches. We are now looking forward to handing these proposals over to the IETF. I also have a strong interest in the analysis and characterization work that we formed a subgroup around. Lastly, I will continue to focus directly on email security and anti-spam technologies in my role as CTO of CipherTrust. This role is important because it is what exposed me to the anti-spam problem and led me to form the ASRG. The knowledge gained by being on the frontline is invaluable. I'm sure this perspective is shared by many of the group members that are also on the frontline. Thanks to everyone here for their involvement thus far in the anti-spam efforts and thank you specifically for your contributions to the ASRG. It is rare to come upon such an important and complex problem. Due to the work of all of the members of the anti-spam community, we are experiencing a shift in the spam battle as our efforts are forcing spammers to take very defensive and desperate measures. We should be proud of our accomplishments thus far, yet focused on continued progress, and also excited about the point in the near future when we have sufficiently controlled the spam problem. Regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 16:10:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20944 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKOjY-0006jY-Gf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADLAWHV025878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKOjY-0006jJ-Cu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:32 -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 QAA20927 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKOjW-0005QD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:30 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKOjW-0005Q9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKOj3-0006gd-Oq; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKOi4-0006fs-Gt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:09:00 -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 QAA20882 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKOi2-0005Ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:08:58 -0500 Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com ([144.135.25.159]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKOi1-0005Nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:08:58 -0500 Received: from lerc-daemon.mta05ps.email.bigpond.com by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HOB001556KQ2V@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from email.bigpond.com ([172.26.103.16]) by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HOB0024A6KGIY@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org.lerc-daemon (ORCPT asrg@ietf.org); Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:05:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.115.149] by mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com (mshttpd) ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:05:04 +1100 From: "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Oct 29 2003) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:05:04 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O I've followed this discussion in digest mode with interest, and hear three things. 1. the proposal seems to offer a promising direction to deal with some sorts of spam (and some worms) 2. the proposal needs more work and clarification (its only a first draft) 3. when there is something to offer, there is a significant task involved in gaining support and adoption. I agree with those who suggest that a strategy for the latter is needed, and perhaps the group with the skills and contacts to move that forward may be quite different to the group who can refine the proposal. Perhaps a parallel work group to look at adoption issues? If you like, the change management rather than the detailed protocol issues. Sure they inter-relate (the proposal with the best chance of getting up is the one that is easier to implement etc) but it will probably help the discussion to concentrate individual efforts where they can best be utilised. I'm happy to work with others towards addressing change management and adoption issues with this subject. Ian Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 17:35:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25118 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ3f-0004Jf-SY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADMZNdl016585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ3f-0004JQ-K4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:23 -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 RAA25041 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ3d-0006t2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ3c-0006sz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ3K-0004Ag-JY; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ2x-00049e-Mz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:34:39 -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 RAA24998 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:34:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ2v-0006s6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:34:37 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ2u-0006rh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:34:36 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 81C213801F; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:34:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CAE3801C for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:34:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id WAA12267; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:34:06 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample] Message-ID: <20031113223406.GB12138@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:34:06 +0000 Status: O >When I started looking at spam seriously 24 months ago I wrote an internal >report which predicted that spammers would start to use trojan horse >techniques. So the virus problem would quickly become a problem of large >numbers of zombie machines captured by spammers that are then used to >propagate themselves through the spammer sender list instead of the local >address book. Actually the situation is a bit more complicated than that. We have a large number of "backdoor" Trojans floating around, which are being distributed in different ways - some are posted as binaries to Usenet groups, others are mailed, spam-style and yet others are distributed from web sites. When someone runs one of those backdoors, it will open up the machine, and then various things can happen. For example a different worm or backdoor may use the established backdoor to gain entry to the machine. Also, a spammer may take over the machine - and use it to send spam or to participate in a DDoS attack on one of a RTBL site, for example. We do not have any hard proof of a financial connection between the spammers and the backdoor programmers, but I would not be terribly surprised if there was one. > Viruses are dead, they no longer use the address book to replicate, the > replication list is external and has millions of victims listed. No. Worms use different ways to determine the addresses they send copies of themselves too, but no worms, or at least none that fall in the "real threat" category rely on a single external list. Typically they will search the infected machine for anything resembling a valid mail address, or harvest addresses from Usenet posts. -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 17:38:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25298 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ6J-000515-8o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADMc7IQ019277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ6H-00050A-VV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:06 -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 RAA25289 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ6F-0006wV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ6F-0006wS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ6E-0004uy-Jh; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQ5o-0004o7-7x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:36 -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 RAA25277 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ5l-0006w8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:33 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQ5l-0006vs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:33 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id A0A453801F; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDC33801C for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id WAA12272; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:03 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Spam Sample] Message-ID: <20031113223703.GC12138@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:37:03 +0000 Status: O > However, my concern is whether this is a sign that people will begin to > attack spam via spam, kind of like a story a while back where a virus > was sent to patch a hole explotiable by another virus. We have a few cases like that, including one where a "well-meaning" attempt backfired, and the "anti-virus"-virus turned out to become a more serious problem than the original virus. I could tell you a long story about this, but it is too far off-topic for this mailing list ;-) -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 13 18:24:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28934 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQpM-0000N5-ES for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hADNOeI0001420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQpL-0000Mo-SV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:40 -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 SAA28890 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQpI-0007n8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQp6-0007ms-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQok-0000EC-8u; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKQoW-0000Ax-Ji for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:23:48 -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 SAA28853 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:23:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQoT-0007ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:23:45 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKQoT-0007ld-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:23:45 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003111323231501600hiugde>; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:23:15 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.105]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC5B18685 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:28:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FB41262.4090609@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals References: <200311131035219.SM01928@viper1> In-Reply-To: <200311131035219.SM01928@viper1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:23:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Denny Figuerres wrote: > Excuse me if I may have missed this some where..... > > Perhaps one part of the solution will be to recommend some (I think) small > changes to how companies send out email to customers. The common practice of > hiring a third party to send out such emails as newletters airline > confirmations and so forth are done now in a way the can make it difficult > to classify them as HAM not spam for a few reasons: > > 1) The "From" and the sending MTA's DNS often do not mtach. > 2) the DNS / IP of the sender may be included in a DNS RBL as a SPAM DOMAIN > 3) attempting to check the user@domain.com fails as it does not exist or the > test is done at the bulk senders domain which does not match. > > So could the company that is "sending" the email and the "bulk delivery > provider" fix-up the dns records and the sending mta "HELO" to match the > "From abc@some.com" to make whitlisting simpler and tracking back via > headers a bit sane-er ? > > If this would not cause major issues it would clear up a lot of issues with > bulk delivery of legit emails. > > Just my idea based on some real world problems ..... This is something that the current LMAP proposal could accomplish, rather eaasily. The domain owner would simply need to add the IP addresses of the contracted company's MTAs to their allowed list, and it would authenticate perfectly. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 00:44:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13716 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKWkA-0001u1-CV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAE5hgbu007303 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKWkA-0001th-7t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:42 -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 AAA13709 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKWk7-0006UP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKWk6-0006U4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKWjV-0001mD-1V; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKWjQ-0001lv-JZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:56 -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 AAA13691 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKWjN-0006Tq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:53 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKWjN-0006Tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:53 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: pIhpY00AZtr1oXBTRrDT2w 1068788526 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-68-123-181-91.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.123.181.91]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84BC4067C2; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FB46B29.8050508@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP References: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> <3FB2AC1A.808@ME2004.SENT.COM> In-Reply-To: <3FB2AC1A.808@ME2004.SENT.COM> 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:42:01 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO On 11/10/2003 5:59 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > Just a reminder that a draft of the LMAP discussion document has been > posted and is available at: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt > My feedback: Typos: propogation, matcg and Columes aren't words. ==== No reason for including mention of ASRG is provided. Add "A private list of LMAP type proposal writers from the ASRG hashed out an initial version of this spec, which was then posted to the ASRG mailing list for further discussion." ? === Indeed, we should remove the possibly OT paragraphs in 2.1.2. (C-R and SMTP AUTH may well be critically flawed, but they're OT, and have found significant use) === 3.3 needs a correction. It falsely states that content filters can only work if the email has already been accepted. It should instead say "... has already been _received_." It is perfectly acceptable, per RFC 2821, to send a <550 refusal to accept for policy reasons> in response to the end-of-data indication, and thereby not accept the email. SpamAssassin, for example can be configured to operate this way. === Re: "Note that recipients should also publish that they use/enforce LMAP. (Ed.: This topic should be addressed in more detail.)" It would be good if there were a standard computer-readable way for this to be determined. (Some possibilities: a welcome message or response to the EHLO/HELO (like "LMAP required" or "LMAP used" added to the "No UCE permitted." when one connects to, e.g. smtp.us.messagingengine.com) , or a DNS entry for the recipient domain.) Perhaps we should not say that MUAs MUST NOT use/enforce LMAP at all, which is something the current spec states implicitly - by saying that LMAP is only about MTAs. We should say that MUAs MUST NOT send forged* email to the alleged sender in order to indicate that they use/enforce LMAP. We should encourage MTAs to refuse forged* email during the SMTP session, and if that's not possible, either accept and tag it, or discard it. *"forged" strictly as defined in the spec, not any kind of forgery! === In "'An individuals "freedom of speech", " individuals should have an apostrophe: individual's. They're US-centric (as is the spam problem, as http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/ proves) but I'd like to see the following quotes added, though I can't really present a strong argument for it, beyond being on topic and really good quites: *US Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:* "[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands." *Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court* "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." === Section 3.1, 3.2, etc. : Really good! === My two original cents on the record type, which it seems is settling on TXT : I concur that LMTP be TXT record based (unless, within the next 5 months, we can get at least ALL of the major players to commit/promise to be on board with a new type. I think it's unlikely, and TXT is the way to go. I think, for example MS wouldn't get on board without a lot of public pressure - like when its recent opposition to California anti-spam bills (SB 12/186, now law) finally vaporized under an intense spotlight - which a technical issue like this is unlikely to create.) Major players/products include bind (8 & 9, I assume given Vixie's involvement), ultradns, Microsoft DNS; zoneedit, dyndns; cPanel, the top 5 DNS providing domain registrars and other major players I've missed. Assuming we stick with TXT, we STILL NEED to get the major players who DON'T EVEN support TXT records to get on board with doing so, and there are several! Until we do, the claim in 5.1.1 : "LMAP currently requires no changes to existing DNS implementations." in a sense isn't quite true (perhaps the implementations that don't support TXT records aren't therefore actually DNS implementations!) === 5.1.6: Only roaming users are indistinguishable from spammers === 4.1.13: s/existing implementation/existing implementations/ === I hope these suggestions are appreciated. -- Matthew Admin note: I initially mailed this post on the 11th, from a disposable address and it just vanished. Glitch? IMO, it would be nice if the mailing list didn't bitbucket submissions from non-subscribers. Apropos first steps /how to get deployment to take place/change management: Here's my vision for how it'll happen. If the current versions of qmail, sendmail, and postfix supported LMAP by default, LMAP on the Internet would be inevitably on the way to success. Exchange or Notes would likely follow, and another inevitable security bug announcement in a few of them will cause the vast majority to upgrade. Result: the Internet is LMAP ready for nearly any domain that wishes to do so to roll out and have it be highly effective. At that point, it is inevitable because it will sell itself. Anyone who gets joe-jobbed will find out about LMAP if they look into what to do about it, and scream loudly at admins until it protects them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 01:47:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15276 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKXjb-0004tq-PZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAE6lBbl018828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKXjb-0004tb-Lp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:11 -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 BAA15260 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKXjY-0007Ja-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKXjY-0007JX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKXjS-0004qU-0c; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKXii-0004nb-Gn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:16 -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 BAA15228 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKXie-0007I4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:12 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKXie-0007I1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:12 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip139-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.139]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18387368DF for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:32 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals Message-ID: <20031114064632.GA2081@m433> References: <200311131035219.SM01928@viper1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311131035219.SM01928@viper1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:46:32 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Denny Figuerres wrote > Excuse me if I may have missed this some where..... > > Perhaps one part of the solution will be to recommend some (I think) > small changes to how companies send out email to customers. The common > practice of hiring a third party to send out such emails as newletters > airline confirmations and so forth are done now in a way the can > make it difficult to classify them as HAM not spam for a few reasons: The problem associated with 100 companies sharing one outbound MTA is very similar to the problem associated with 100 men sharing one girlfriend. All it takes is for one man to get infected, and they all suffer. > 1) The "From" and the sending MTA's DNS often do not mtach. > 2) the DNS / IP of the sender may be included in a DNS RBL as a SPAM DOMAIN > 3) attempting to check the user@domain.com fails as it does not exist > or the test is done at the bulk senders domain which does not match. > > So could the company that is "sending" the email and the "bulk > delivery provider" fix-up the dns records and the sending mta "HELO" > to match the "From abc@some.com" to make whitlisting simpler and > tracking back via headers a bit sane-er ? > > If this would not cause major issues it would clear up a lot of > issues with bulk delivery of legit emails. > > Just my idea based on some real world problems ..... There are two competing forces at work here. If email sent out by the bulk-mailer is sufficiently differentiated to enable SMTP-stage filtering, they "good-guys'" mailing lists are more likely to get through. If the differentiation isn't done, and a bulk-mailer like Topica gets "Amber Alert" as a customer, they have one helluva human shield to help get their unconfirmed lists through. And on a cynical note, if a company bulk-emails to some dirty lists and some clean lists, do you really trust their alleged "clean lists" ? Notwithstanding that, let's assume we accept that scenario. So we have a company example.com that outsources a mailing list to cyberpromo4u.biz. cyberpromo4u.biz has a sending MTA by the name of mta.cyberpromo4u.biz. How about if example.com points a CNAME bad.example.com at mta.cyberpromo4u.biz ? The envelope sender could be set to somebody@bad.example.com. The receiving MTA could check the IP address for bad.example.com, and it would be the IP address of mta.cyberpromo4u.biz, which is doing the actual emailing. Because example.com is assumed to control their DNS, one can reasonably assume that example.com has authorized mta.cyberpromo4u.biz to send email on their behalf. The authorization is granted in the form of a DNS entry controlled by example.com. It can be revoked by changing or deleting that CNAME record. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 10:30:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15676 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKftI-0006Sk-Er for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEFTiiu024836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKftI-0006SV-4I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:44 -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 KAA15661 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKftF-00073s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:41 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKftF-00073p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKfsb-0006OS-IV; Fri, 14 Nov 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 1AKfs6-0006Nx-T5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:28:30 -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 KAA15628 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKfs4-00072u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:28:28 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKfs4-00072r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:28:28 -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 CDF3B1803D for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:15:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'ASRG'" Message-ID: <013901c3aac4$01e4ce30$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FB30CBF.6040203@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Turing Tests Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:28:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I'm struggling a little bit in trying to figure out how Turing tests fit into a fully automated protocol. For example, with CRI, we are allowing for a stateful mail system to automatically respond to challenges. However, I'm not sure where a turing test would apply. Turig tests are designed for a human interaction...which is precisely what I am trying to overcome. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 11:37:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19336 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKgwv-0004al-3y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEGbWnc017645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKgwu-0004aU-JO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:32 -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 LAA19320 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKgwt-0000cv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKgwt-0000cs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKgwQ-0004K0-D5; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:37:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKgwC-0004Jc-Q7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:48 -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 LAA19307 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKgwB-0000cK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:47 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKgwA-0000cH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:46 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEGajGU025170 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:45 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEGaj6l009002 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:45 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEGajmI008998; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by grelber.thyrsus.com id hAEGajGU025170 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] Propposed additions and changes for draft-irtf-asrg-requirements Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:36:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Status: O --- draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 14:57:05 1.1 +++ draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 16:36:28 @@ -278,18 +278,73 @@ =20 1.3.1 Anti-spam (Requires consensus definition - RCD) =20 +An anti-spam technique is any method which assists in the suppression +or rejection of unsolicited bulk email. Such techniques include, but +are not limited to: methods for mail-sender identification and +authentication; content-based spam recognition; graylisting; +challenge-response systems; hash-cash and other methods for imposing +transmission costs on senders. + 1.3.2 Bulk E-mail (RCD) =20 +Bulk email is email sent in volume, as duplicates or near-duplicates +distinguished only by tumblers. Fewer than a dozen recipients is not +generally considered bulk volume; more than fifty generally is. In +between is a gray area, which however is seldom relevant to anti-spam +efforts as they are generally concerned with stopping unsolicited bulk +mailings of much higher volume (e.g. in the thousands or millions). +Bulk mail may be solicited (as when people join a mailing list and +thereby consent to receive it) or unsolicited. + 1.3.3 Caller (RCD) =20 1.3.4 Callback (RCD) =20 1.3.5 Challenge/Response System (RCD) =20 +A challenge-response system is a technique that requires a mail sender +to authenticate itself by computing and returning an acceptable +response from a piece of data presented by the receiver. +Challenge-response authentication may be used to demonstrate that=20 +the sender knows a shared secret qualifying it as one that has the +receiver's consent, or that the sender has paid a toll in +computational or other resources for the privilege of sending to +the receiver, or possibly in other ways not anticipated here. + 1.3.6 Consent (RCD) =20 +An email user explicitly consents to receive mail when he or she records= with +a potential sender or sender's agent a willingness to receive mail from=20 +that sender meeting a specified range of topic or content criteria. +Consent is a credential given to the sender but owned by the +consenting party, and may be withdrawn. =20 + +An email user may also implicitly consent to receive mail by allowing +certain categories of mail from senders with which no explicit consent +has been registered. The key point about both kinds of consent is +that they may be withdrawn. + +Most users implicitly consent to receive non-commercial communications +from individuals, and implicitly withhold consent to receive +unsolicited bulk email. Explicit consent to recieve solicited bulk +email (e.g. mailing lists) is also common. + 1.3.7 Consent Based Communications (RCD) =20 +A consent-based communications system is one in which receivers may +set and enforce a policy on what communications they wish to have +sent to them in order not to be overwhelmed by unsolicited and unwelcome +commmunications. The premise of consent-based systems is that the +user may withdraw consent, at which point senders have an affirmative +duty to respect the user's wishes and the system may enforce upon +them an inability to send to that user. + +An individual consent-bassed communication is one for which the sender +has a justified expectation of consent by the receiver. Most users +implicitly consent to receive non-commercial communications from +individuals, and implicitly withhold consent to receive bulk +commercial email; the justified expectation should be formed in light +of this standard policy. =20 Williams Expires: April 2, 2003 [Page 5]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements October 2, 2003 @@ -297,6 +352,10 @@ =20 1.3.8 Commercial E-mail (RCD) =20 +Commercial email is any electronic mail sent for the purpose of +promoting a product, service or profit-making enterprise; or of +soliciting a business relationship. + 1.3.9 Domain Name System (DNS) =20 A system for associating character based names with=20 @@ -334,6 +393,9 @@ =20 1.3.13 Legitimate Messaging (RCD) =20 +Legitimate messaging is that for which the sender has the explicit or +implicit consent of the sender. =20 + 1.3.14 Message Content =20 That part of a messaging transaction that contains data as @@ -342,6 +404,14 @@ =20 1.3.15 Message Envelope Forgery (RCD) =20 +Message envelope forgery occurs when a sending program misidentifies +the sender during the email protocol transaction from the receiver. +It may be, and often is, combined with message header forgery; both +are common traits of spam. The usual purpose of such forgery is to +fool the receiver into thinking the message comes from a sender with +good reputation (e.g. not a criminal or habitual spammer) so that it +will not be rejected before it is read. + 1.3.16 Message Envelope Protocol =20 The protocol used during message transfer to insert message @@ -363,6 +433,14 @@ =20 1.3.18 Message Header Forgery (RCD) =20 +Message header forgery occurs when a sending program misidentifies the +sender in the RFC822 or RFC2822 mail headers. It may be, and often +is, combined with message envelope forgery; both are common traits of +spam. The usual purpose of header forgery is to fool the receiver into +thinking the message comes from a sender with good reputation (e.g. +not a criminal or habitual spammer) so that it will not be rejected +before it is read. + 1.3.19 Message Origination =20 The process of inserting an original or revised message into @@ -424,6 +502,13 @@ =20 1.3.25 Non Consent Based Communication (spam) (RCD) =20 +A non-consent-based communicatoon (idiomatically, spam) is one for +which the sender does not have a justified expectation that the target +will consent to receive it. Most users implicitly consent to receive +non-commercial communications from individuals, and implicitly +withhold consent to receive unsolicited bulk email; the justified +expectation should be formed in light of this standard policy. + 1.3.26 Open Relay MTA =20 An MTA which is configured to relay mail for local domains and @@ -434,8 +519,22 @@ =20 1.3.27 Opt-In (RCD) =20 +An opt-in mailing list is one which reqires an explicit consent or +sign-up before the user will be sent mail. All legitimate mailing +lists are of this type. + 1.3.28 Opt-Out (RCD) =20 +An opt-out mailing list is one for which target addresses are +collected by the sender or some third party, and from which recipient +may in theory withdraw by explicit withdrawal of consent. In +practice, so many operators of so-called "opt-out" lists ignore=20 +attempt to opt out -- and (worse) use the addresses opt-out requests as=20 +targets in other spam lists -- that most mail users will no longer +touch an opt-out button. Because of this trap, opt-out lists have +come to be considered a spam technique and their operators presumptive +spammers. + 1.3.29 Recipient/Receiver =20 A computer system, application or process that is the final, @@ -456,6 +555,13 @@ =20 1.3.31 Spammer (RCD) =20 +A spammer is a person or organization that habitually sends spam, that +is email for which the sender has no reasonable expectation that the +targets will consent to recieve it. Most users implicitly consent to +receive non-commercial communications from individuals, and implicitly +withhold consent to receive unsolicited bulk email; the justified +expectation should be formed in light of this standard policy. + 1.3.32 Relay MTA =20 An MTA configured to participate in a store-and-forward=20 @@ -498,7 +604,25 @@ =20 1.3.36 Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail (RCD) =20 -1.3.37 Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (RCD) +Unsolicited bulk email is bulk email for which the sender does not +have a prior indication of consent from the targets. This category=20 +almost coincides with spam and is generally considered the most +serious kind of spam. + +1.3.37 Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (RCD) + +Unsolicited bulk email is commercial email (whether bulk or not) for +which the sender does not have a prior indication of consent from the +targets.=20 + +1.3.38 Tumbler + +A tumbler is a section of text inserted in instances of bulk email +(often in the Subject header) which varies between instances in a=20 +way irrelevant to the semantic content of the message. Spammers use +tumblers to defeat spam-recognition methods based on exact hashing and +to dilute the effectiveness of Bayesian and other content-based spam +recognition techniques. =20 1.4 Anti Spam Technical Framework =20 @@ -607,11 +731,11 @@ =20 2.4.1 Rational: =20 - Any solution to the problems with =C2=91spam=C2=92 should be easily + Any solution to the problems with 'spam' should be easily deployed to facilitate either incremental or wide-spread adoption. Existing systems will likely continue to be used, - thus a solution that leverages existing technology or MTS =C2=91anti- - spam=C2=92 implementations will also speed introduction. A proposal + thus a solution that leverages existing technology or MTS 'anti- + spam' implementations will also speed introduction. A proposal that relies on non-existent infrastructure or technology is not likely to be deployed. =20 @@ -789,7 +913,7 @@ =20 One of the most pernicious issues involving [spam] are related to accountability of the [spammers] who provide invalid or - simulated information in order to =C2=93game the system=C2=94 provided = by + simulated information in order to "game the system" provided by the current MTS. Designers MUST describe the issues of accountability addressed by their proposal. Message origination and message formatting forgery must be considered --=20 Eric S. Raymond The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. -- Jeff Snyder _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 11:56:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20189 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKhEw-0005vi-N9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEGuAX3022794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKhEw-0005vZ-HG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:10 -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 LAA20155 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKhEv-0000wJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKhEu-0000wG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKhEn-0005om-Gl; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKhE2-0005nj-MD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:14 -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 LAA20124 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:54:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKhDz-0000vF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKhDz-0000vC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEGtAGU025310 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEGtA6l009084 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEGtAYr009080; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.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: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Status: O --- draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:37:39 1.1 +++ draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:52:25 @@ -566,6 +566,19 @@ is also not clear who should receive the fees or how they should be disbursed. + Another possible form of sender-pays is to impose costs + at mail-transaction time without trying to clear them as + payments in the real world -- so-called "hash-cash" schemes. + The purpose of such techniques is not to compensate the + receiver for reading spam but to impose a friction cost on + spammers, ideally one that would make bulk-mail prohibitively + expensive. Hash-cash schemes rely on the existence of + challenge-response methods in which the response is provably + expensive to compute. A difficulty with them is that their + effectiveness could be diluted or eliminated by techniques + such as zombie-flood spamming attacks in which the spammer + essentially does not care about the amount of time any one + hijacked machine has to spend shipping a spam. 3.3. Filtering _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 12:48:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22090 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi3a-0001yX-LI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEHmUmB007594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi3Z-0001yP-51 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:29 -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 MAA22079 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi3X-0001lx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi3W-0001lu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi36-0001uI-Sc; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi2i-0001tu-OY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:47:36 -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 MAA22054 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi2g-0001lJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:47:34 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi2g-0001lF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:47:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 1218 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 12:47:32 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 12:47:32 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 22551 invoked by uid 101); 14 Nov 2003 12:47:31 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Propposed additions and changes for draft-irtf-asrg-requirements Message-ID: <20031114174731.GC443@iridium.mv.net> References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:47:31 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > --- draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 14:57:05 1.1 > +++ draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 16:36:28 Very nice stuff. A couple comments and minor nits.. > 1.3.7 Consent Based Communications (RCD) > > +A consent-based communications system is one in which receivers may > +set and enforce a policy on what communications they wish to have > +sent to them in order not to be overwhelmed by unsolicited and unwelcome > +commmunications. The premise of consent-based systems is that the > +user may withdraw consent, at which point senders have an affirmative > +duty to respect the user's wishes and the system may enforce upon > +them an inability to send to that user. I would worry that that text could be read differently depending on one's frame of mind. It could be read as a justification for opt-out spam. Perhaps change "wish to have sent" to "allow to have sent"; and mention something about the default consent state (i.e., the default is "non-consent"). Otherwise it looks like later withdrawal is the default. I realize that the following paragraph does address that a little, but the above appears to give a complete definition of the "premise of consent-based systems" as one in which the user can withdraw consent. Perhaps "A premise" or "Part of.." > + > +An individual consent-bassed communication is one for which the sender based > +1.3.37 Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (RCD) > + > +Unsolicited bulk email is commercial email (whether bulk or not) for > +which the sender does not have a prior indication of consent from the > +targets. The text does not flow from the heading. Seems like it should be "Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail is email (whether bulk or not)"... > + > +1.3.38 Tumbler Interesting term. > 2.4.1 Rational: Rationale > One of the most pernicious issues involving [spam] are related is related mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 12:50:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22201 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi55-0002AI-NL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEHo3nG008316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi55-0002A3-G4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:03 -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 MAA22182 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi53-0001nz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi53-0001nw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi52-00027j-SM; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:50:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKi46-0001zn-Tj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:49:03 -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 MAA22089 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKi43-0001mH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -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 1AKi3x-0001ls-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:48:53 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-074.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.187.56]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOC009D3S1332@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:46:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB514E6.8040505@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document (was Re: [Asrg] Propposed additions and changes for draft-irtf-asrg-requirements) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:46:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O I forwarded the comments to Eric Williams who is the author of the requirements document. Thank you very much for your comments. Also, just a friendly reminder to follow the mailing list guidelines, it makes things easier to follow on a large volume list such as this one (guidelines are at http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm). Yakov Eric S. Raymond wrote: > --- draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 14:57:05 1.1 > +++ draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt 2003/11/14 16:36:28 > @@ -278,18 +278,73 @@ > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 13:14:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23183 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKiSP-0004co-0K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEIE83A017772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKiSO-0004cZ-SJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:08 -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 NAA23146 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKiSM-00029e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKiSM-00029b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKiSH-0004Yo-No; Fri, 14 Nov 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 1AKiRl-0004YK-L5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:29 -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 NAA23106 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKiRj-00028x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:27 -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 1AKiRj-00028f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:27 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-074.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.187.56]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOC00DAXT9GN9@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:12:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) In-reply-to: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB51B22.6020906@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.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, 14 Nov 2003 13:12:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > --- draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:37:39 1.1 > +++ draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:52:25 > @@ -566,6 +566,19 @@ > is also not clear who should receive the fees or how > they should be disbursed. > > + Another possible form of sender-pays is to impose costs > + at mail-transaction time without trying to clear them as > + payments in the real world -- so-called "hash-cash" schemes. > + The purpose of such techniques is not to compensate the > + receiver for reading spam but to impose a friction cost on > + spammers, ideally one that would make bulk-mail prohibitively > + expensive. Hash-cash schemes rely on the existence of > + challenge-response methods in which the response is provably > + expensive to compute. A difficulty with them is that their > + effectiveness could be diluted or eliminated by techniques > + such as zombie-flood spamming attacks in which the spammer > + essentially does not care about the amount of time any one > + hijacked machine has to spend shipping a spam. I forwarded the comments to Dave Crocker. However, my question is whether we should add a comment here about the fact that spammers can build specialized computers to do hashcash calculations and then perhaps rent it out to other spammers to use. That possibility has been mentioned on the list before. Even though it increases their costs, that increase might not be enough to make spam not profitable. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 14:31:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25552 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKjel-0001bL-PC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:30:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEJUxdH006149 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:30:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKjel-0001b6-Js for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:30:59 -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 OAA25469 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:30:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKjei-0003A5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:30:56 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKjYW-00031k-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:24:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AKjPW-0001hF-6E for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:15:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKjPL-0000n7-3a; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKjOj-0000mK-7J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:14:25 -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 OAA24923 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKjOe-0002uO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:14:20 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKjOe-0002uJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:14:20 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp168280.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.96.78]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2385640AE; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:14:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: "Eric S. Raymond" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311141913.56291.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:13:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Friday 14 November 2003 11:36, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > 1.3.5 Challenge/Response System (RCD) > > +A challenge-response system is a technique that requires a mail sender > +to authenticate itself by computing and returning an acceptable > +response from a piece of data presented by the receiver. > +Challenge-response authentication may be used to demonstrate that > +the sender knows a shared secret qualifying it as one that has the > +receiver's consent, or that the sender has paid a toll in > +computational or other resources for the privilege of sending to Perhaps also worth mentionning: !the receiver, or possibly in other ways not anticipated here. !the receiver, or that sending the message required interaction +with a human being, or possibly in other ways not anticipated +here. I'm thinking schemes where (part of) the challenge is an hard-to-ocr image, the contents of which need to be part of the response. A scheme which is in increasingly common use on web sites to avoid automated form submission but that I've yet to see used for email C/R. > +Most users implicitly consent to receive non-commercial communications > +from individuals, and implicitly withhold consent to receive > +unsolicited bulk email. Explicit consent to recieve solicited bulk > +email (e.g. mailing lists) is also common. This finds itself paraphrased throughout the document, but I think it raises the usual concern about the definition of spam in general. What about email of a commercial nature but sent to one or many users with the reasonable expectation that they will be interested? Or manualy sent email of a nature where expectation of consent is unreasonable (Say, I pick the support email of some pro-foo web site and email them anti-foo hate mail)? All that to say that... > 1.3.7 Consent Based Communications (RCD) > +An individual consent-bassed communication is one for which the sender > +has a justified expectation of consent by the receiver. This sounds like a much more reasonable definition to me (minus the paraphrase that follows). In fact, the whole "justified expectation" concept sounds to be like a very valuable premisce when trying to define spam in the first place. Perhaps we should spend some brain cycles to refine it? > 1.3.8 Commercial E-mail (RCD) > > +Commercial email is any electronic mail sent for the purpose of > +promoting a product, service or profit-making enterprise; or of > +soliciting a business relationship. Yes, and that is part of my problem with the definition of spam as we usually know it. If I send *one* email announcing my newfangled foo-manufacturing-tool to a list of businesses or individuals that I have collected from foo-manufacturing websites, I have a reasonable expectation that they might be interrested. Indeed, I would doubt that the recipients would feel the message /was/ spam unless they started seeing multiple copies filling their inbox. If I collect the email from a foo-related newsgroup, say, then my "justified expectation" is more tenuous. It vanishes entirely if I buy a mailing list or spider randomly for emails from the web. > 1.3.25 Non Consent Based Communication (spam) (RCD) > > +A non-consent-based communicatoon (idiomatically, spam) is one for > +which the sender does not have a justified expectation that the target > +will consent to receive it. Most users implicitly consent to receive > +non-commercial communications from individuals, and implicitly > +withhold consent to receive unsolicited bulk email; the justified > +expectation should be formed in light of this standard policy. I'd just drop the bit about "most users". I'm not sure it's helpful and it tends to partition spam into classes, which has always caused problems. > 1.3.31 Spammer (RCD) > > +A spammer is a person or organization that habitually sends spam, that > +is email for which the sender has no reasonable expectation that the > +targets will consent to recieve it. I'd use "reasonable" or "justified" throughout. I would tend to prefer justified, myself, but alternating is confusing if the indended meaning is the same. > +Most users implicitly consent to > +receive non-commercial communications from individuals, and implicitly > +withhold consent to receive unsolicited bulk email; the justified > +expectation should be formed in light of this standard policy. Again? :-) Even if we want to keep that definition of "default" expectations, it should probably be in one place only; otherwise they may get out of sync as we revise the document. > +1.3.38 Tumbler Nice terminology. Adopted. :-) > 2.4.1 Rational: Rationale? Otherwise all very nice, IMO, and a very good foundation on which to build. -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 16:06:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29372 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKl93-0008Rs-0b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEL6KIQ032470 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKl92-0008Rd-Rw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:20 -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 QAA29359 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKl91-0004J6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKl90-0004J3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKl8i-0008Nq-DB; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:06:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKl7n-0008IO-TO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:05:06 -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 QAA29306 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKl7l-0004IR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:05:01 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKl7l-0004IF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:05:01 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 9C97B1F001; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:08:25 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) Message-ID: <20031114210825.GF12505@mail> References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:08:25 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:12:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Eric S. Raymond wrote: > >+ Another possible form of sender-pays is to impose costs > >+ at mail-transaction time without trying to clear them as > >+ payments in the real world -- so-called "hash-cash" schemes. > > I forwarded the comments to Dave Crocker. However, my question is > whether we should add a comment here about the fact that spammers can > build specialized computers to do hashcash calculations and then perhaps > rent it out to other spammers to use. That possibility has been > mentioned on the list before. Even though it increases their costs, that > increase might not be enough to make spam not profitable. Another issue is that it begins a trend of requiring CPU power to participate in the Internet. That's a bad thing for people who want to provide inexpensive computing to third world countries, and for the retro-computing crowd. Once Hashcash became widely used, CPU vendors would have an incentive to encourage spam, in order to push the rate of 'stamps' up, and make people upgrade their machines. For the single home user, it wouldn't matter so much, but I run some mailing-lists for friends... Basing an anti-spam mechanism on technology have/have-nots would seem to be a difficult balance to achieve, when the spammers have financial incentive, and I don't. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> All this stuff in twice the space would only look half as bad! - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 16:12:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29567 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlEs-0000dO-1p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAELCLig002432 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlEr-0000d8-OX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:21 -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 QAA29533 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlEq-0004NH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlEp-0004ND-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlEW-0000V4-MX; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKkCY-0004n9-3p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:54 -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 PAA26761 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKkCV-0003ZG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:51 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKkCU-0003ZD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:50 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEK5gGU027229; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:42 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAEK5f6l010315; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:41 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAEK5fbr010313; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:41 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Marc A. Pelletier" Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document Message-ID: <20031114200541.GB10172@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311141913.56291.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311141913.56291.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:05:41 -0500 Status: O Marc A. Pelletier : > On Friday 14 November 2003 11:36, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > 1.3.5 Challenge/Response System (RCD) > > > > +A challenge-response system is a technique that requires a mail sender > > +to authenticate itself by computing and returning an acceptable > > +response from a piece of data presented by the receiver. > > +Challenge-response authentication may be used to demonstrate that > > +the sender knows a shared secret qualifying it as one that has the > > +receiver's consent, or that the sender has paid a toll in > > +computational or other resources for the privilege of sending to > > Perhaps also worth mentionning: > > !the receiver, or possibly in other ways not anticipated here. > !the receiver, or that sending the message required interaction > +with a human being, or possibly in other ways not anticipated > +here. Agreed. I consider this a friendly amendment. > > +Most users implicitly consent to receive non-commercial communications > > +from individuals, and implicitly withhold consent to receive > > +unsolicited bulk email. Explicit consent to recieve solicited bulk > > +email (e.g. mailing lists) is also common. > > This finds itself paraphrased throughout the document, but I think it raises > the usual concern about the definition of spam in general. What about email > of a commercial nature but sent to one or many users with the reasonable > expectation that they will be interested? Or manualy sent email of a nature > where expectation of consent is unreasonable (Say, I pick the support email > of some pro-foo web site and email them anti-foo hate mail)? That's why both "unsolicited" and "bulk" are important qualifiers in this description of a standard policy. Your anti-foo hate mail has implicit consent under the standard policy because, though it's unsolicited, it is not bulk. I'm *deliberately*, not accodentally, leaving the minor edge cases unspecified here. If we overdefine the standard policy people will blow holes in it. > This sounds like a much more reasonable definition to me (minus the > paraphrase that follows). In fact, the whole "justified > expectation" concept sounds to be like a very valuable premisce when > trying to define spam in the first place. Perhaps we should spend > some brain cycles to refine it? OK, what needs refining? By the way, I didn't completely pull the concept of "justified expectation" out of thin air. I'm interested in analytic philosophy, and there is a notion from there that in order to be regarded as knowledge a theory must not only be predictively correct, but be *justified* -- that is, the theorizer must have causal grounds to believe it that connects to his other knowledge. > > 1.3.8 Commercial E-mail (RCD) > > > > +Commercial email is any electronic mail sent for the purpose of > > +promoting a product, service or profit-making enterprise; or of > > +soliciting a business relationship. > > Yes, and that is part of my problem with the definition of spam as > we usually know it. If I send *one* email announcing my newfangled > foo-manufacturing-tool to a list of businesses or individuals that I > have collected from foo-manufacturing websites, I have a reasonable > expectation that they might be interrested. Indeed, I would doubt > that the recipients would feel the message /was/ spam unless they > started seeing multiple copies filling their inbox. Fine, but we haven't gotten to talking about spam yet. Just commercial email, not all of which (as you point out) is spam. > > 1.3.31 Spammer (RCD) > > > > +A spammer is a person or organization that habitually sends spam, that > > +is email for which the sender has no reasonable expectation that the > > +targets will consent to recieve it. > > I'd use "reasonable" or "justified" throughout. I would tend to prefer > justified, myself, but alternating is confusing if the indended meaning is > the same. Fair point. I would be friendly to a change that used "justified" everywhere. > > +Most users implicitly consent to > > +receive non-commercial communications from individuals, and implicitly > > +withhold consent to receive unsolicited bulk email; the justified > > +expectation should be formed in light of this standard policy. > > Again? :-) Even if we want to keep that definition of "default" > expectations, it should probably be in one place only; otherwise > they may get out of sync as we revise the document. I thought of that. But I couldn't think of any obvious tag or term to put that policy description under. > > +1.3.38 Tumbler > > Nice terminology. Adopted. :-) Etymological note: I got this one from the old Xanadu hypertext project. They used it for the unique IDs, analogous to URLs, in their system. Using it for variant segments in spam is a bit original of me. What both kinds of tumbler have in common is that their most important characteristic is uniqueness rather than whatever is encoded into them. I would also call an RFC822 message ID a tumbler. > > 2.4.1 Rational: > > Rationale? Not my error :-) > Otherwise all very nice, IMO, and a very good foundation on which to build. Thanks. Put the quality down to all the practice I got maintaining the Jargon File. (No, that's not a joke.) -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 14 16:43:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00399 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlij-0002kS-T5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAELhDPW010563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlij-0002kI-Mc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:13 -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 QAA00388 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlih-0004kU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlih-0004kR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKliW-0002gR-Rc; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:43:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlhY-0002g5-3i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:42:00 -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 QAA00376 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlhU-0004jv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:41:56 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlhU-0004js-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:41:56 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id E01301F001; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:45:24 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) Message-ID: <20031114214524.GI12505@mail> References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> <20031114210825.GF12505@mail> <20031114212639.GA10810@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031114212639.GA10810@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:45:24 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:26:39PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > David Maxwell : > > Basing an anti-spam mechanism on technology have/have-nots would seem to > > be a difficult balance to achieve, when the spammers have financial > > incentive, and I don't. > > These are damn good, solid points. > > I'm still in favor of acknowledging the existence of hash-cash ideas in the > challenge-response section, but you've done an excellent job of arguing > that they're not actually a good idea. I didn't mean to imply that any idea should be excluded from review. I'm very much in favour of the documents being thoroughly inclusive, and covering the good and bad points of each method of attacking the spam problem. > On the gripping hand, this argument is out of scope for the document. I think that the relevant argument is whether the question of hard costs (and the cases where economies of scale might overcome the hard costs for the spammer) might need to be covered under 'Balance of Burdens' and 'Impact on Participants'. Perhaps each proposed solution should include a statment about how much overhead on bandwidth/storage/processing is imposed by the suggested changes. -- 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 Sat Nov 15 18:39:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24921 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA0v-0008JE-Is for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAFNdb6p031936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA0u-0008J1-MB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:37 -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 SAA24885 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALA0r-0007f2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALA0q-0007eu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA0L-0008BU-G7; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKqvO-0001Sa-9b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:16:38 -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 WAA11494 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:16:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKqvK-0001LI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:16:34 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKqvJ-0001LE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:16:33 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAF3GUV4003808 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:16:30 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131E7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C3AB26.DC685D80" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:16:29 -0800 Status: O 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_000_01C3AB26.DC685D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have no idea where the attached fits in the hierarchy. It is a survey of various approaches to authentication and accreditation. Members may wish to read and comment. The format is HTML, lets see if the mailing list will take it. Phill ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3AB26.DC685D80 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="AAspam.htm" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AAspam.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Use of Authentication and Accreditation to Combat Spam

Use of Authentication = and Accreditation to Combat Spam.

Phillip Hallam-Baker

Principal Scientist,
VeriSign Inc.

Introduction

Unwanted and indiscriminate email messages, = commonly known as spam are an increasing nuisance for Internet users. The costs of spam = are documented at great (and increasing) length elsewhere [PHB] and require no further elaboration here.

In this paper we examine the use of authentication = and accreditation mechanisms as tools to mitigate spam. We use the term authentication to refer to verification of information presented in the = email message itself, in particular the authenticity of the purported email = address of the sender and the domain name of the transferring server exchanged = in the SMTP initialization sequence. We use the term accreditation to refer to mechanisms that provide information from a third party that concerns an authenticated email sender.

Several proposals have been made that employ = authentication and accreditation to mitigate spam[PHB][RMX][SPF][Vixie][Lumos][TEOS], in most cases the differences between = proposals based on the same underlying technique are superficial, relating to choice of = syntax rather than fundamental differences of approach. The field is also an = active one subject to rapid change. Our treatment is therefore a high level = one, considering the potential of the underlying mechanisms rather than = particular proposals. We expect that any successfully deployed scheme will be at = least capable of extension to support each of the authentication and = accreditation levels set out in this paper.

Potential Benefits

Authentication and accreditation offer three types = of potential benefit.

The elimination of spam that fails the = authentication checks in such a way that it can be positively identified as being spam.

Ensuring that legitimate email is delivered and = not either eliminated or quarantined as a =91false positive=92

Increasing the effectiveness of other forms of = control, including filtering.

These benefits may be mutually reinforcing. For = example an authentication mechanism that allows a significant proportion = legitimate email to be identified with certainty would permit more aggressive filtering = criteria to be applied to the residue of non-authenticated email without an = unacceptable rise in the number of false positives.

Authentication and accreditation mechanisms are = also subject to a strong =91network effect=92. As authentication techniques are more = widely used it is likely that the criteria used to filter non-authenticated email = will become progressively more aggressive. As a result legitimate email = senders will have an increased incentive to authenticate their emails in order to = ensure that they are received and read by the intended recipient. Eventually a =91tipping point=92 is reached at which the deployment of authenticated = email becomes self-sustaining.

Unfortunately while network effects result in = rapid self-sustaining growth once the tipping point is reached, a mechanism = that only offers benefits through the network effect offers no benefit to early = adopters. The corollary of the network effect is thus the chicken and egg = problem.

Eliminating Spam Attacks

One of the main objections made against using = authentication mechanisms to control spam is that mechanisms that do no more than = authenticate the domain name of the email sender can only eliminate certain types of = spam rather than being effective against spam in general. This argument = would hold considerable weight if all forms of spam were equally objectionable and = there was no benefit to denying spammers the use of certain tactics.

In practice neither condition holds. While all = spam is objectionable, not all of it is sent with the intention of defrauding = the recipient or the commission of some other criminal scheme. Nor is the = use of techniques by spammers that may be defeated through authentication a = casual one. These tactics are employed because they allow a spammer to = increase the effectiveness of their solicitations and as a result increase their = profits. Denying the use of these techniques increases the difficulty of sending = spam and reduces the incentives to do so.

It is important therefore to identify the specific = types of spam attack that authentication techniques can mitigate or eliminate. = We consider the following categories.

Impersonation Spam
Also known as =91Joe jobs=92, this type of spam impersonates another = user. This technique is frequently used to ensure that complaints resulting from = the spam are directed at another party. Another use of this technique that is of particular concern is the impersonation of a well-known brand (often an = auction site or financial institution) with the objective of performing = identity theft fraud.

Hijacked Platform Spam
Spammers have always attempted to conceal the source of their = activities and to displace their costs onto other parties. One way to achieve both these = ends is send spam from computers that have been compromised by hackers. There = is evidence that suggests that a black-market exists in which hackers sell compromised machines to spammers [Spitz].

Criminal = Solicitations
A spammer who is engaged in a criminal scheme such as consumer fraud, = identity theft or advance fee fraud must take steps to avoid arrest and = prosecution. In most cases this means that the spammer will attempt to conceal their = identity and in many cases the spammer will also make use of a foreign = jurisdiction that is unlikely to cooperate with extradition requests.

Bulk Spam
We define bulk spam to be email that is sent indiscriminately to a very = large number of recipients, such that the cost of handing the volume of email = becomes a significant burden in itself. For the purposes of this paper we will = consider a spam mailing of a million messages or more to be bulk spam, although = this threshold is essentially arbitrary.

Infrastructure Attack
We define an infrastructure attack to be an attack against the critical infrastructure of the Internet, in particular the routing = infrastructure and the DNS. To date the incentive to perform such attacks has been = limited. The few attacks that have occurred have tended to use techniques that have had only a limited impact on = the infrastructure itself, for example advertising BGP routes for = unallocated or unused IP address blocks. The deployment of lightweight authentication mechanisms that can be defeated through infrastructure attack will = dramatically change the incentives for spammers to defeat them. Accordingly this = form of attack must be considered very seriously even though it is currently = very rare.

These categories are not exclusive. It is highly = likely that an impersonation spam will also contain a criminal solicitation and be = sent from a hijacked platform.

It should be noted that in each case these = categories represent types of spam that is generally considered to be =91the worst = of the worst=92 having effects that go far beyond mere irritation of the = intended recipient.

Ensuring Delivery of Legitimate Email

Ensuring the delivery of legitimate email is at = least as important as eliminating spam. Otherwise we could guarantee the = elimination of all spam by switching off the Internet.The following cases are defined = in order of increasing generality:

Existing Contacts
Legitimate email is guaranteed delivery provided that it is sent by an = existing contact known to the recipient.

Existing Domains
Legitimate email is guaranteed = delivery provided that it is sent from the same domain as an existing contact. = For example if alice@example.com is an existing contact then mail from both = her and bob@example.com is accepted.

Trustworthy Senders
Legitimate email is guaranteed = delivery provided that an sender consideredt to meet a criteria defined by the = sender to be =91trustworthy=92sent it. It = is not necessary [1]<= span style=3D'mso-special-character:comment'> for either the receiver to identify the = individual sender as being trusted.

Although the implementation of a = trustworthy sender is almost certain to depend on some form of accreditation mechanism = such as those described below, the distinction between a trustworthy sender and = an accredited sender is an important one. Any party may recognize a sender = as being =91accredited=92 but it is the recipient who decides whether to = accept that accreditation as implying trustworthiness.

Additional Controls Supported

In addition to allowing direct control of certain = types of spam, authentication and accreditation mechanisms may enable or improve = the effectiveness of other forms of spam control. For example, the chief = difficulty in spam prosecutions is discovering the identity of the spammer.

Prosecution & Litigation
In any case that a spammer commits a crime or civil tort in connection = with a spam there is an opportunity for criminal prosecution or civil = litigation, provided that the spammer can be identified.

Abuse penalties
A party that breaks an undertaking to comply with an email use policy = may be liable for specified penalties and/or compensation claims if the = undertaking is broken.

Reputation
The ability to tie an email sender to an identity that is not = easily replaced provides a basis for holding the sender accountable.

Authentication

Authentication mechanisms provide the recipient of = an email with an assurance that the purported origin is genuine.

DNS Authentication
The origin of the email is authenticated by means of information = published in the DNS zone corresponding to the purported =91from=92 address.

PKI Authentication
The origin of the email is authenticated by means of a digital = signature that is cryptographically bound to the message itself.

DNS authentication is effective in eliminating = impersonation spam and hijacked platform spam and allows a delivery assurance to be = provided for email from existing contacts. The authentication provided through = DNS authentication is strong but not unbreakable and can be defeated by = means of infrastructure attacks.

The first proposal to use DNS based authentication = was written by Paul Vixie after an idea credited to Jim Miller [Vixie]. More recent proposals [RMX][SPF] differ in implementation details but these affect only ease of administration or efficiency rather than basic principles. PKI authentication provides = the same benefits as DNS authentication but in addition is resistant to = infrastructure attacks.

PKI based authentication mechanisms may be message = based [SMIME][PGP] or transport based = [SSL][StartTLS]. Message = based authentication provides robust end to end security but existing = standards are written with a view to identifying the end user rather than the ISP or Enterprise transporting the email. For purposes of spam control it is = generally preferable to authenticate and hold accountable ISPs and Enterprises = rather than attempting to track the behavior of hundreds of millions of = individual end users. Transport based PKI authentication is designed to provide = authentication at the ISP or Enterprise level but the authentication information is = lost in forwarding.

One of the drawbacks of any PKI based = authentication mechanism is the processing time required to perform PKI operations. = These costs may be mitigated using commonly available = cryptography-acceleration products.

Accreditation

We distinguish between the following types of = accreditation:

Identity Accreditation
The email sender has provided a real world identity and a physical = address at which legal process can be served and this information has been = authenticated by means of some trustworthy process.

Policy = Accreditation
In addition to meeting the identity accreditation requirements, the = email sender has undertaken to comply with a specified email sending = policy.

Reputation = Accreditation
In addition to meeting the policy accreditation requirements, the email = sender has been determined to be in compliance with those requirements.

These levels of accreditation represent an = increasing commitment in terms of cost and complexity.

Identity accreditation provides a full delivery = assurance for email from existing contacts and a partial assurance for email from existing domains and accredited senders. In addition identity = accreditation increases the effectiveness of prosecution, litigation and reputation = controls.

Policy accreditation provides in addition a full = delivery assurance to be provided for email from existing domains and accredited = senders and allows the imposition of abuse penalty controls.

Reputation accreditation provides a greater degree = of assurance that a policy accreditation has not been abused to send = spam.

For an accreditation scheme to be effective it = must be used in conjunction with an authentication mechanism. In the case of the = Bonded Sender program [Bonded] senders are = authenticated by means of the IP address of the originating server in a manner similar = to that of the DNS based authentication schemes. Project Lumos [Lumos] and TEOS [TEOS] use PKI based authentication = mechanisms.

Authentication and Accreditation Levels

Small-scale trials of security technologies tend = to overstate their effectiveness when ubiquitously deployed since it is = not worthwhile for an attacker to break a system until there is sufficient incentive to do so. This is one of the reasons why spam control = measures developed in the research lab frequently prove disappointing when = deployed on a wider scale.

The unknown factor in planning for authentication = based spam control is the determination and ability of the attackers. Providing = increased levels of assurance incurs increased costs. It is highly likely that a = debate on the level of assurance necessary to defeat spam senders in advance = of deployment will be a productive one.

Instead of advocating a particular level of = security we present a series of authentication and accreditation levels that are = ranked in order of increasing cost.

Level 1=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DNS Authentication

Level 2=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DNS Authentication + Identity Accreditation

Level 3A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DNS Authentication + Policy Accreditation

Level 3B=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 PKI Authentication + Identity Accreditation

Level 4=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 PKI Authentication + Policy Accreditation

Assurance levels 3A and 3B are grouped together = since these may be realized in either order. It is likely that in practice these = would represent intermediate stages towards a comprehensive deployment of a full-featured level 4 infrastructure. The principal cost involved in = the issue of PKI credentials is the authentication of the subject=92s identity = rather than management of public key credentials.

Summary Table

Table 1 Cost and Benefits of Increasing Authentication and Accreditation Levels.

Level

Mechanism

Cost

Effective Against

Delivery Assurance

Enable Control

1

DNS Authentication

Negligible

Impersonation spam
Hijacked platform spam

Existing contacts
(Existing domains)

 

2

DNS Authentication + Identity Accreditation

Registration of identity

Impersonation spam
Hijacked platform spam

Existing contacts
(Existing domains)
(Trustworthy senders)

Prosecution & Litigation
Reputation

3A

DNS Authentication + Policy Accreditation

Registration of identity
Policy undertaking

Impersonation spam
Hijacked platform spam

Existing contacts
Existing domains
Trustworthy senders

Prosecution & Litigation
Reputation
Abuse penalties

3B

PKI Authentication + Identity Accreditation

Registration of identity
Public key operation

Impersonation spam
Hijacked platform spam Infrastructure attack

Existing contacts
(Existing domains)
(Trustworthy senders)

Prosecution & Litigation
Reputation

4

PKI Authentication + Policy Accreditation

Registration of identity
Policy undertaking Public key operation

Impersonation spam
Hijacked platform spam Infrastructure attack

Existing contacts
Existing domains
Trustworthy senders

Prosecution & Litigation
Reputation
Abuse penalties

 

References

[Bonded]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bonded Sender, http://www.bondedsender.org/

[Lumos]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Network Advertising Initiative=A0 = Email Service Provider Coalition Project Lumos: A Solutions Blueprint for Solving = the Spam Problem by Establishing Volume Email Sender Accountability, = September 2003, http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/Project_Lumos_White_Paper.= pdf=A0 =A0

[PGP]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, = R. and T. Roessler, MIME Security with OpenPGP, RFC 3156, August&nbs= p;2001. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc= 3156.txt=A0 =A0

[PHB]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Phillip Hallam-Baker, A Plan for No Spam, VeriSign Inc. May 2003, http://ww= w.verisign.com/resources/wp/spam/no_spam.pdf=A0

[RMX]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Hadmut Danisch, The RMX DNS RR and method for lightweight SMTP sender = authorization, Internet Draft draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt, Oct 2003, http://www.da= nisch.de/work/security/antispam.html

[SMIME]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 B. Ramsdell, S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification, IETF RFC 2633 = June 1999, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc= 2633.txt =

[SPF]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Meng Weng Wong, Sender Permitted From A Convention to Identify Hosts = Authorized to Send SMTP Traffic, Internet Draft draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt = November 2003 http://spf.pobox= .com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt

[Spitz]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Lance Spitzner Honeypots: Tracking Hackers Addison-Wesley,=A0 September 2002, http://www.tracking-hacke= rs.com/book/ = =A0

[SSL]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Dierks, T. and C. Allen, The TLS Protocol Version 1.0, RFC 2246, January = 1999. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc= 2246.txt

[StartTLS]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P. Hoffman, SMTP Service Extension for = Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security, February 2002, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3207=

[TEOS]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Vincent Schiavone et. al. Trusted Open Email Standard, May 2003, http://epriva= cygroup.net/teos/TEOSwhitepaper1.pdf

[Vixie]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Paul Vixie, Repudiating MAIL FROM, Internet Draft, June 6, 2002, http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg0215= 8.html

 

 [1]

------_=_NextPart_000_01C3AB26.DC685D80-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 15 18:40:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24950 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA10-0008Ja-ND for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAFNdgPk031956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA0v-0008JH-Sq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:42 -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 SAA24884 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALA0r-0007ez-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALA0q-0007et-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALA0K-0008BG-R1; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AKlSm-0001bZ-Tb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:44 -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 QAA29793 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlSk-0004Wo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:43 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AKlSk-0004Wl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:42 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAELQdGU028168; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:39 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAELQd6l010831; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:39 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAELQdvP010829; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:39 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: David Maxwell Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) Message-ID: <20031114212639.GA10810@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> <20031114210825.GF12505@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031114210825.GF12505@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:26:39 -0500 Status: O David Maxwell : > Another issue is that [hash-cash] begins a trend of requiring CPU power to > participate in the Internet. > > That's a bad thing for people who want to provide inexpensive computing > to third world countries, and for the retro-computing crowd. > > Once Hashcash became widely used, CPU vendors would have an incentive to > encourage spam, in order to push the rate of 'stamps' up, and make > people upgrade their machines. For the single home user, it wouldn't > matter so much, but I run some mailing-lists for friends... > > Basing an anti-spam mechanism on technology have/have-nots would seem to > be a difficult balance to achieve, when the spammers have financial > incentive, and I don't. These are damn good, solid points. I'm still in favor of acknowledging the existence of hash-cash ideas in the challenge-response section, but you've done an excellent job of arguing that they're not actually a good idea. On the gripping hand, this argument is out of scope for the document. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 15 19:04:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25823 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALAOe-00019S-1Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAG048gX004420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALAOd-00019D-SL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:07 -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 TAA25806 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALAOa-0000H4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALAOa-0000H1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALAOX-00016l-Ra; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALANj-000164-4n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:11 -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 TAA25785 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALANf-0000GL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:07 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALANf-0000GI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:07 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp168280.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.96.78]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88EC5640AE for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:03:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311141913.56291.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <20031114200541.GB10172@thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031114200541.GB10172@thyrsus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311160003.00706.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:03:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Friday 14 November 2003 15:05, you (ESR) wrote: > > This sounds like a much more reasonable definition to me (minus the > > paraphrase that follows). In fact, the whole "justified > > expectation" concept sounds to be like a very valuable premisce when > > trying to define spam in the first place. Perhaps we should spend > > some brain cycles to refine it? > > OK, what needs refining? I'm still trying to figure that out itself. The idea is stuck in my brain and has raised the "attractive but incomplete" flag. I think it all flows from my observation that spam lies entierly in the eye of the beholder; what you would perceive as spam I might not, and vice versa. While there are a few broad categories that most people would agree is spam at all times, restricting the definition of spam to those-- or widening it needlessly-- is harmful to anti-spam efforts in the long term. So my idea is (please bear in mind that this has not yet matured): "A sender is /not/ spamming if he sends a message with the justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to perceive the message as spam." This has nice properties. A mailing list maintainer is not spamming if he took reasonable effort to insure subscriptions to his list are genuine (even if some were falsified by some third party) because he is justified to expect that the recipients wanted to receive the message and would perceive it as spam. Likewise, the sender of what we would call commercial spam cannot justify such an expectation, regardless of how earnestly he beleives it is interesting, simply by his overt admission (by anti-spam defeating measures part of his message) that he does /does/ expect his recipients to consider his message spam. So, I'm thinking the right way to define spam is not about what the recipient thinks is spam, but about what the *sender* beleives the recipients think is spam. I'm not being very clear, am I? That's what I meant about my idea not being quite mature yet. :-) > > Again? :-) Even if we want to keep that definition of "default" > > expectations, it should probably be in one place only; otherwise > > they may get out of sync as we revise the document. > > I thought of that. But I couldn't think of any obvious tag or term to put > that policy description under. How about "Presumption of consent"? > > > +1.3.38 Tumbler > > > > Nice terminology. Adopted. :-) > > Etymological note: I got this one from the old Xanadu hypertext > project. They used it for the unique IDs, analogous to URLs, in their > system. Using it for variant segments in spam is a bit original of > me. What both kinds of tumbler have in common is that their most > important characteristic is uniqueness rather than whatever is encoded > into them. I would also call an RFC822 message ID a tumbler. I might make a finer distinction that "tumbler" might refer to a variant segment whose /sole/ purpose appears to be uniqueness. Message IDs are more properly serial numbers because they are used to associate the variant with a specific message rather than simply differentiate it from the others. I have once received a spam that, somehow, had not been expanded properly by the mailer and there were instances of % expansion throughout, including a few "%RANDOM_ALNUM(x)", so there is probably no association kept between the individual tumbler values and the recipients. The reason why I make a distinction in the first place is that there are other sorts of unique IDs often imbedded in spam whose purpose seems likely to be tracking the individual recipients (most often in image URLs so that an http server gets to collect them without human interaction). I always presumed those were meant to validate an email as "good" and thus increase its value. Heh. Evil tought. Maybe one of us should write an otherwise good spam mass mailer that tracks the *sender* by steganography in the tumblers (so it ends up being /easier/ to blacklist them) and use the sales proceed to help finance blacklists or the EFF. I'm presuming spammers read this mailing list-- so this message is for you: who knows, next time you buy one of your Tools of Evil, if that's not going to be an undocumented feature? Ph34r the coder! :-) -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 15 21:24:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00263 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALCaG-000795-Uv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAG2OGRu027461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALCaG-00078q-Q3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:16 -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 VAA00252 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALCaD-0002KU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:13 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALCaC-0002Ja-03 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:24:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ALCLk-0006x1-N1 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:09:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALCLU-0006kh-L6; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALCCL-0006Ei-9X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:59:33 -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 UAA29581 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALCCI-00020f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:59:30 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALCCI-00020c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:59:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 13650 invoked by uid 100); 16 Nov 2003 01:59:30 -0000 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> <20031114210825.GF12505@mail> <20031114212639.GA10810@thyrsus.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: 15 Nov 2003 20:59:30 -0500 Status: O >I'm still in favor of acknowledging the existence of hash-cash ideas in the >challenge-response section, but you've done an excellent job of arguing >that they're not actually a good idea. I agree, both that hashcash is a bad idea, and that it's worth documenting the arguments pro and con so the next time it comes up, we can point people at the document rather than having the argument over again. It was an elegant idea when Dwork and Naor proposed it a decade ago, but Moore's law dooms it. You might want to check out my note at www.taugh.com that explains why e-postage in general is unworkable, with hashcash being only one variety. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 02:35:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21291 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALHQr-0003x8-C4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAG7Yrg2015194 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALHQq-0003wz-Om for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:52 -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 CAA21262 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALHQm-0007CO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALHQm-0007CL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALHQB-0003tz-Hv; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:34:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALHPm-0003tB-8q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:33:46 -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 CAA21228 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALHPi-0007Bg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:33:42 -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 1ALHPi-0007Bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:33:42 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-391-147.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.251]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOF004ESOXBEP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:32:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FB727EB.6040602@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Article: AT&T granted patent on a way todefeat spam filtering Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:31:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O This comes from Dan Gillmor's column (http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001506.shtml) via SlashDot (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/16/0532225.shtml): Via Greg Aharonian's Internet Patent News Service comes the news that AT&T has received this patent for -- I kid you not -- a way to defeat anti-spam measures: "A system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam.) An address on a list is assigned to one of m sublists, where m is an integer that is greater than one. A set of m different messages are created. A different message from the set of m different messages is sent to the addresses on each sublist. In this way, spam countermeasures based upon duplicate detection schemes are foiled." The patent can be found at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,643,686.WKU.&OS=PN/6,643,686&RS=PN/6,643,686 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 04:42:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23934 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALJQF-0002F0-5T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAG9gMlj008611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALJQC-0002Eo-Oh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:20 -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 EAA23922 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALJQ9-0000oA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALJQ9-0000o7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALJPv-0002CZ-69; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:42:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALJPN-0002By-64 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:41:29 -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 EAA23915 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALJPK-0000ns-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:41:26 -0500 Received: from ns.dcn.ru ([212.220.30.10] helo=www.dcn.ru) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALJPJ-0000np-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:41:25 -0500 Received: from edo.dcn.ru (Edo.dcn.ru [10.10.10.212]) by www.dcn.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09643E2AB2 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:41:24 +0500 (YEKT) From: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" Organization: DCN To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP - Deployment User-Agent: KMail/1.5.93 References: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311160052.36342.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:41:22 +0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Gradual deployment issues. 1. Benefits of early adopters (Definition: 'non-LMAP' or 'non-conformant' party is a DNS domain and associated persons, software and hardware, deploying no LMAP records, i.e. absolute majority of today) 1.1. Non-rejecting Server what don't reject to communicate with non-LMAP parties is protected against simple kinds of domain forgery (while speaking about LMAP-conformant domains) and existing mail worms (mostly). Spam which declares itself to be from some existing LMAP-conformant domain is also rejected. (It is obviously a minority of all spam, while speaking about early adoption.) 1.2. Rejecting Servers rejecting to communicate with non-LMAP parties are protected against virtually any mail having forged sender domain. A drawback is communication with non-conformant domains made forbidden by default. (And it is a majority of domains during early adoption phase.) 2. 'Day M' Ideally, LMAP implicitly assumes that because of wide advertisement almost all mail servers will deploy LMAP on some day. So, at the next day any non- LMAP-conformant mail may be rejected. Practically this is impossible and M days will significantly differ at different sites. Lets explore consequences of site A closing doors for non-conformant mail: - sender at non-conformant site B sends a mail to site A - he receives bounce saying "just conformant mails this day, see RFC" - sleepy sysadmin is called - sysadmin has to: - learn more about LMAP - explore any available updates to software (for free?) - if yes, apply them (downtime) - if no, consider migration possibilities If entity A is significantly bigger than B then, most probably, no policy will be implemented for B exclusively. So, e-mail communication B->A will be forbidden until sysadmin will handle all the things. If entity A is big enough then number of non-conformant Bs may make it not to implement reject policy. If bigger entities will not implement the policy, then it may never be adopted effectively wide. Yes, LMAP enforcement by e.g. Hotmail is a guarantee. But it is a bad kind of guarantee. 3. Gradual enforcement So (in my humble opinion) gradual enforcement policies have to be discussed and somehow recommended (or deprecated) by RFC. Following is some variants. 3.1. postmaster notification Most trivial measure is notification of postmaster@ of non-LMAP domain about deadline approaching. 3.2. random tempfail Other possible measure is first-time TEMPFAIL reject with commentary notifying sender and postmaster of sender's domain about deadline. Random TEMPFAIL is also possible. In most cases, the mail will finally be delivered (by nth attempt, n hours later). Probability of reject may depend on date/time (reaching 1.0 at M-day noon, for example). 3.3. timeframe tempfail More complicated possible strategy is a closing timeframe. I.e. at some 'happy' seconds mails from non-LMAP domains are accepted, at other seconds TEMPFAIL is returned. Percentage of 'happy' seconds gradually decreases until M day. So, non-LMAP senders and admins will be receiving ever growing stream of unignorable notifications, while e-mail communication will remain actually functioning (at least, some time before M day). Even more sophisticated strategies are possible to overcome possible spammer's workarounds. 4. Possible benefits of gradual enforcement First, early adopters have not to dive into cold water rejecting mails from non-conformant parties. Second, warnings and notifications are distributed directly, and not by mass media, for example. Thus, no special propagandistic effort is required. Third, tempfail mechanics will have greylisting effect. It is basically a variation of greylisting having absolute LMAP enforcement as it's limit. So, the deployment period may be set long enough (say year), because gradually- enforced LMAP will have effect long before M day (be it coordinated planet-wide one or some random date for every site). Hypothetical LMAP flaws may be found and fixed during long deployment phase. (Using M-day approach, supposing a flaw is found at M+1 day, this may require one more media campaign.) Any comments? -- Viktor S. Grishchenko just a postmaster _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 07:35:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26874 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALM7d-00079S-Ap for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAGCZLXU027484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALM7d-00078q-3z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:21 -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 HAA26861 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALM7c-0003SP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALM7b-0003SM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALM7K-00075x-Vq; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALM7D-00075P-JM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:34:55 -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 HAA26850 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALM7C-0003Re-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:34:54 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALM7C-0003Qg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:34:54 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id DF8E038035; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86B638031 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id MAA19027; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:19 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [research@solidmatrix.com: [Asrg] 0. General - Article: AT&T granted patent on a way todefeat spam filtering] Message-ID: <20031116123419.GO12576@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:19 +0000 Status: O I wonder if the intention is to patent this, so they can sue any spammer using this method for patent violations. Might be a smart move, if that is the case - patent law is pretty strong. However, the patent is not quite broad enough for that - it does not clearly seem to cover the technique of adding random crap to make each message slightly different from any other. -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 10:57:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01054 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALPGx-0004Mi-PB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAGFvBL0016779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALPGx-0004MY-KY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:11 -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 KAA01035 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALPGv-0006cH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALPGu-0006cD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALPGn-0004KG-1Y; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALPGj-0004K1-7D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:57 -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 KAA01027 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALPGg-0006bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALPGg-0006bo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAGFupoI025812; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:56:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:56:51 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131E9@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'esr@thyrsus.com'" , David Maxwell Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Docume nt (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-0 2.txt) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:56:47 -0800 Status: O The basic principle behind hash cash is to prove that some limited resource has been expended to create a message. The problem with using CPU power is that it is a variable quantity that is subject to exponential increase in availability, inflation is a real problem. A more satisfactory alternative in my view is to use trusted hardware, then the limitation on use can be set independent of the processor capability. You can also have a lot of variance in the application. There are a couple of problems, first trustworthy hardware is pretty rare these days, I do not think that we require FIPS 140 class 3 hardening for spam control because compromise is inevitable and some form of revocation mechanism is going to be required. ObDisclaimer: VeriSign has intellectual property claims on this mechanism. This post does not constitute any grant. I do not believe that the IP claims would be an issue in practice, even for open source software since any licensing would be tied to the hardware there would be no incentive to require licensing of the software component. I do not anticipate that licensing fees would be substantially different to the existing cost of issuing embedded device keys. Every new cable modem has these keys embedded now. The subtler cost issue is that although the license fee would be modest you do not want the cost of the device to be modest. As a minimum the device should cost about $50 or preferably $100. So you really want to embed the technology into a device such as a firewall, router, cable modem or motherboard. You do not want spammers being able to defeat the system by buying $5 smart tokens in bulk. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric S. Raymond [mailto:esr@thyrsus.com] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:27 PM > To: David Maxwell > Cc: Yakov Shafranovich; Eric S. Raymond; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. > Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to > draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) > > > David Maxwell : > > Another issue is that [hash-cash] begins a trend of > requiring CPU power to > > participate in the Internet. > > > > That's a bad thing for people who want to provide > inexpensive computing > > to third world countries, and for the retro-computing crowd. > > > > Once Hashcash became widely used, CPU vendors would have an > incentive to > > encourage spam, in order to push the rate of 'stamps' up, and make > > people upgrade their machines. For the single home user, it wouldn't > > matter so much, but I run some mailing-lists for friends... > > > > Basing an anti-spam mechanism on technology have/have-nots > would seem to > > be a difficult balance to achieve, when the spammers have financial > > incentive, and I don't. > > These are damn good, solid points. > > I'm still in favor of acknowledging the existence of > hash-cash ideas in the > challenge-response section, but you've done an excellent job > of arguing > that they're not actually a good idea. > > On the gripping hand, this argument is out of scope for the document. > -- > Eric S. Raymond > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 16 14:22:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04555 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALSTN-0002V3-8f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAGJMDof009603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALSTN-0002Uo-3r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:13 -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 OAA04534 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALSTK-0001Co-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALSTK-0001Cl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALSTB-0002S2-Az; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALSSL-0002R7-0E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:21:09 -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 OAA04478 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALSSI-0001Aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:21:06 -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 1ALSSH-0001AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:21:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-391-147.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.251]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOG0015KLOJQ1@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:19:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FB7CDC0.7000906@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Announce List for 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, 16 Nov 2003 14:19:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O We wanted to get some feedback from members on a possibility of making a separate low-traffic read-only announcement list for the ASRG. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 16:30:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07948 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALUTJ-0006D0-UC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAGLUH1H023860 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALUTJ-0006Cl-Pf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:17 -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 QAA07930 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALUTH-0003L0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALUTH-0003Kx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALUT5-000676-53; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALUSH-00066N-FY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:29:13 -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 QAA07913 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALUSF-0003Ko-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:29:11 -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 1ALUSF-0003Kf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:29:11 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-391-147.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.251]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOG00BUDRNPBH@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:28:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG list Message-id: <3FB7EC03.8020100@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 16 Nov 2003 16:28:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O 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 One of ASRG co-chair's, Dr. Paul Judge, has stepped down. He has been replaced by Dr. John R. Levine. 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 moderators or chairs 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. John R. Levine - 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 Nov 16 20:55:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14870 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALYbw-00075p-3K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAH1tSAN027261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALYbv-00075c-V9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:27 -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 UAA14854 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALYbt-0006Kd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALYbt-0006KZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALYbY-00073M-7D; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALYbA-00072S-A0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:54:40 -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 UAA14825 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALYb7-0006KH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:54:37 -0500 Received: from ns34.webmasters.com ([207.142.134.41]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALYb7-0006Jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:54:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 10813 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2003 01:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO A3) (dave@flowerdog.com@66.229.76.120) by ns34.webmasters.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2003 01:54:57 -0000 Message-ID: <000801c3acad$af7cb090$0300a8c0@A3> From: "Dave Atherton" To: References: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> <200311160052.36342.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP - Deployment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:54:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" > 3. Gradual enforcement > > So (in my humble opinion) gradual enforcement policies have to be discussed > and somehow recommended (or deprecated) by RFC. Following is some variants. > > 3.1. postmaster notification > > Most trivial measure is notification of postmaster@ of non-LMAP domain about > deadline approaching. > > 3.2. random tempfail > > Other possible measure is first-time TEMPFAIL reject with commentary > notifying sender and postmaster of sender's domain about deadline. Random > TEMPFAIL is also possible. In most cases, the mail will finally be delivered > (by nth attempt, n hours later). Probability of reject may depend on > date/time (reaching 1.0 at M-day noon, for example). > > 3.3. timeframe tempfail > > More complicated possible strategy is a closing timeframe. I.e. at some > 'happy' seconds mails from non-LMAP domains are accepted, at other seconds > TEMPFAIL is returned. Percentage of 'happy' seconds gradually decreases until > M day. So, non-LMAP senders and admins will be receiving ever growing stream > of unignorable notifications, while e-mail communication will remain actually > functioning (at least, some time before M day). Should we say "LMAP-conformant" or "LMAP-compliant"? I have usually heard the term "compliant" in other matters but perhaps that was for some particular point of meaning? In reading the original posting, the term "conformant" (or "non-") described only the originator. It is certainly possible for a domain to be conformant or not as an originator while simultaineously being conformant or not as a recipient. Should we use a term other than "conformant" to describe a recipient such as "LMAP-using" or "LMAP-implementing"? A special case might be "LMAP-enforcing". I like your ideas for gradual enforcement. In effect, recipients who implement LMAP (whatever we call them) would automatically encourage non-conformant originators to become conformant...at least as originators. Use of TEMPFAIL for this purpose could be based on a constant percentage probability or a gradually increasing probability between a start date and a target date. The probability and/or dates could be adjustable by the admin but, perhaps, the default value for the target date could be the same for the entire planet (perhaps, 1-year after RFC publication?). A concern is that some messages will go undelivered prior to "M Day". At a very low probability of LMAP-related TEMPFAIL, the next attempt will usually get the message through. If I understand correctly, however, given enough messages, some messages will eventually fail to be transferred because the retries are also unlucky enough to get TEMPFAILs and the originating users will get Non-Delivery Notifications. How well might such a plan be received by admins and ISP owners? -Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 16 23:10:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17559 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALaiU-0003No-2g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAH4AMoC012998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALaiT-0003M8-Kp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:21 -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 XAA17553 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALaiP-0000MG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALaiP-0000MD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALaiA-0003Ij-FX; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALahB-0003IB-QG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:09:01 -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 XAA17542 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALah7-0000Lt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:08:57 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALah7-0000Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:08:57 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003111704082701400pmmeae>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:08:27 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.100]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DFE18685; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:13:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FB849BB.9010102@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Atherton Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP - Deployment References: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> <200311160052.36342.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> <000801c3acad$af7cb090$0300a8c0@A3> In-Reply-To: <000801c3acad$af7cb090$0300a8c0@A3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:08:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Dave Atherton wrote: > Should we say "LMAP-conformant" or "LMAP-compliant"? I have usually heard > the term "compliant" in other matters but perhaps that was for some > particular point of meaning? > > In reading the original posting, the term "conformant" (or "non-") > described only the originator. It is certainly possible for a domain to > be conformant or not as an originator while simultaineously being > conformant or not as a recipient. Should we use a term other than > "conformant" to describe a recipient such as "LMAP-using" or > "LMAP-implementing"? A special case might be "LMAP-enforcing". For the sake of consistent usage, let's define the following terms: 1. LMAP-compliant domain: a domain that authorizes outgoing MTAs as specified by the forthcoming LMAP RFC. 2. LMAP-compliant MTA: an MTA that sends mail as the domain that authorizes it. NB - this refers to the individual servers, not the software they run. (Note 1, below) 3. LMAP-enforcing MTA: a recipient MTA which looks up the LMAP data for the sender, and acts as follows: a) If LMAP data is not available, acts according to local policy. Initially, the default would be to accept it as it is now. b) If LMAP data is available and the sending MTA is approved, it's accepted, possibly with the insertion of an additional header (should be standardized) indicating that it was checked. Note that the message could still be rejected on other grounds, despite presenting proper LMAP data. c) If LMAP data is available and the sending MTA is NOT approved, it must reject any messages sent with a PERMFAIL. This is the primary case LMAP is targetting, and we should require its implementation from the beginning. Note 1: Software running on MTAs which only originate mail and don't receive it would not need to know anything about LMAP. > I like your ideas for gradual enforcement. In effect, recipients who > implement LMAP (whatever we call them) would automatically encourage > non-conformant originators to become conformant...at least as originators. > Use of TEMPFAIL for this purpose could be based on a constant percentage > probability or a gradually increasing probability between a start date and a > target date. The probability and/or dates could be adjustable by the admin > but, perhaps, the default value for the target date could be the same for > the entire planet (perhaps, 1-year after RFC publication?). > > A concern is that some messages will go undelivered prior to "M Day". At a > very low probability of LMAP-related TEMPFAIL, the next attempt will usually > get the message through. If I understand correctly, however, given enough > messages, some messages will eventually fail to be transferred because the > retries are also unlucky enough to get TEMPFAILs and the originating users > will get Non-Delivery Notifications. How well might such a plan be received > by admins and ISP owners? I think this is exactly the point. At first, most admins would see their queues backing up with TEMPFAILs. If we've gotten enough publicity for this deployment plan, they'll make the connection "no LMAP -> random TEMPFAILs". So most admins will be pretty quick to implement LMAP. For the few that aren't/don't, complaints from their users that mail isn't getting through should enact a pretty swift change. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 10:35:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16044 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlP4-0004fD-At for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:35:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHFZ0MD017907 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:35:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlP2-0004ek-8V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:35:00 -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 KAA16011 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlOz-00009t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:34:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlOz-00009q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:34:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlO5-0004Zd-3T; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlNJ-0004WH-TC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:33:14 -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 KAA15943 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:33:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlNH-00008W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:33:11 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlNG-00008K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:33:11 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2003 07:33:44 -0800 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-413.cisco.com [10.21.65.157]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAHFWbrY009310; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117073126.03ba3670@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: 8a. Evaluation Model - Proposed Changes to Tech. Cons. Document (was Re: [Asrg] Proposed addition to draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.com> References: <200311141655.hAEGtAYr009080@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FB51B22.6020906@solidmatrix.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: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:34 -0800 Status: O At 10:12 AM 11/14/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Eric S. Raymond wrote: >>--- draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:37:39 1.1 >>+++ draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 2003/11/14 16:52:25 >>@@ -566,6 +566,19 @@ >> is also not clear who should receive the fees or how >> they should be disbursed. >> >>+ Another possible form of sender-pays is to impose costs >>+ at mail-transaction time without trying to clear them as >>+ payments in the real world -- so-called "hash-cash" schemes. >>+ The purpose of such techniques is not to compensate the >>+ receiver for reading spam but to impose a friction cost on >>+ spammers, ideally one that would make bulk-mail prohibitively >>+ expensive. Hash-cash schemes rely on the existence of >>+ challenge-response methods in which the response is provably >>+ expensive to compute. A difficulty with them is that their >>+ effectiveness could be diluted or eliminated by techniques >>+ such as zombie-flood spamming attacks in which the spammer >>+ essentially does not care about the amount of time any one >>+ hijacked machine has to spend shipping a spam. > >I forwarded the comments to Dave Crocker. However, my question is whether >we should add a comment here about the fact that spammers can build >specialized computers to do hashcash calculations and then perhaps rent it >out to other spammers to use. That possibility has been mentioned on the >list before. Even though it increases their costs, that increase might not >be enough to make spam not profitable. This has been addressed in various places before (not in ASRG archives?). http://www.camram.org/camram_works.html addresses it. There are answers to this problem that involve developing a mix of resource commitments and not just SHA1. Mark >Yakov > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 10:58:13 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17131 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:58:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALllE-0005fF-Hf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHFvuSW021770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALllE-0005f3-95 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:56 -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 KAA17087 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALllB-0000Tk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:53 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALllA-0000Sh-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:57:53 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ALlco-0003F8-5C for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:49:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlcb-0005No-Ny; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALlcB-0005NN-4R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:48:35 -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 KAA16759 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlc8-0000Pl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:48:32 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALlc8-0000Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:48:32 -0500 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-413.cisco.com [10.21.65.157]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAHFlxrY018852; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:47:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117074626.039cde28@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Mark Baugher Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131E7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131E7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:47:55 -0800 Status: O Phill Thanks for posting this. I have not had enough time to review it but have some opinions from my first read. My first comment is that you use "PKI" in place of "PKC" but the latter is the more general technology and we should keep our options open at this point. Mark At 07:16 PM 11/14/2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >I have no idea where the attached fits in the hierarchy. It is a survey of >various approaches to authentication and accreditation. Members may wish to >read and comment. > >The format is HTML, lets see if the mailing list will take it. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 11:52:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20538 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALmbx-0000iA-Ox for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHGqPLo002728 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALmbx-0000hv-Jo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:25 -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 LAA20517 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALmbw-0001Xu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALmbw-0001Xr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALmbY-0000ce-Ow; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALmbP-0000cM-HE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:55 -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 LAA20505 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALmbO-0001XT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:50 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALmbN-0001XE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:51:50 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2003 08:54:41 -0800 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-413.cisco.com [10.21.65.157]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAHGpGAu026363; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:51:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117084938.03dab428@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Fridrik Skulason From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [research@solidmatrix.com: [Asrg] 0. General - Article: AT&T granted patent on a way todefeat spam filtering] Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031116123419.GO12576@f-prot.com> References: <20031116123419.GO12576@f-prot.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: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:51:13 -0800 Status: O This kind of thing is quite common for copy protection and DRM-related technologies. Macrovision did it for their copy protection devices to prevent a legitimate market emerging in Macrovision anti-circumvention devices. It makes sense for a class of technologies. Mark At 04:34 AM 11/16/2003, Fridrik Skulason wrote: >I wonder if the intention is to patent this, so they can sue any spammer >using this method for patent violations. Might be a smart move, if that >is the case - patent law is pretty strong. > >However, the patent is not quite broad enough for that - it does not >clearly seem to cover the technique of adding random crap to make >each message slightly different from any other. > >-- >Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 >Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing 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 Nov 17 12:30:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23644 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnCW-0002TF-Hd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHHUCpE009497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnCW-0002T6-AY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:12 -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 MAA23624 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnCU-0002fg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnCU-0002fd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnCM-0002Qp-Cl; Mon, 17 Nov 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 1ALnC8-0002Py-9M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:29:48 -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 MAA23621 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnC6-0002fZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:29:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnC6-0002fW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:29:46 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAHHTjqf017728 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:45 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E02424E2F@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C3AD30.63ACCB90" Subject: [Asrg] 8 Proposal - Consent to Receive Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:43 -0800 Status: O 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_000_01C3AD30.63ACCB90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Attached is a proposed mechanism to communicate consent to receive. The idea is to make mailing list subscription to be a matter of empirical observation rather than he-said she-said accusation. The idea is to augment the standard callback loop mechanism with information that allows this to be formalized. I had previously exchanged some email with Yakov on combinging this with his challenge response draft. I do not like this idea for several reasons. The first problem I see is that C/R is inherently controvertial, a lot of people myself included see the challenges as being spam, so the mechanism merely transfers the burden of spam rather than eliminating it. The second issue is speed of deployment, I see no reason to tie consent to receive concepts to C/R. The deployment constituencies are completely different. The third problem is that there is a pathetic but nevertheless aggressively littigated patent that lays claim the C/R idea - even though the MIT AI lab use and the Bornstein use predate it by years. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3AD30.63ACCB90 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="consent to receive.htm" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="consent to receive.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing List Management

Consent to Receive = Mechanism

Phillip = M Hallam-Baker

VeriSign Inc.

Abstract

We propose a mechanism Consent To Receive = that allows an email recipient to provide verifiable =91opt-in=92 consent to = receive email. Consent to Receive may be used to automatically whitelist email from = mailing lists and email forwarded from another email server.

Consent to Receive is designed to require minimal = state maintenance by both the email sender and the recipient and to be = deployable with minimal impact on existing email infrastructure.

Requirements

The Consent to Receive mechanism provides a = verifiable and revocable proof of consent to receive email from a specified = source.

Subscription Consent Problem

The SMTP protocol does not provide a means to = allow a mail server to determine whether a mailing list message was solicited or = not.

Reputation Attacks

An SMTP mail server may be falsely accused of = having sent messages to a non-subscriber.

As the situation currently stands there is no way = to determine the truth or falsehood of such allegations. A party may even = sign up for a newsletter with opposing views so as to be able to complain about = the messages sent and hope to cause the mailing list to be put on a = blacklist.

Events of this type have occurred in connection = with mailing lists of every political persuasion. When complaints are made about a blacklisting they are typically met with further hearsay accusations = that the accused was =91notorious=92.

Unsubscribe Problem

Mailing list users often find it difficult to = unsubscribe. In many cases requests to be unsubscribed are sent to the entire = list.

The un-subscription problem can be a serious = problem when an intermediary such as a mailing list gateway is involved.

Abandoned Subscription Problem

Users often fail to unsubscribe from mailing = lists, causing huge volumes of mail to accumulate unread in an unused account or an = unread mail folder.

Often a mail user will subscribe to a mailing list = on a speculative basis and find that they do not read the list often.

Abandoned List Problem

Mailing lists are often created and then abandoned = after a period of time after falling into disuse. This can create serious = problems if a spammer after discovers an abandoned list without an administrator.

Maintenance Problem

The management of a high volume mailing list = requires a considerable amount of effort.

Deployment Constraints

SMTP Deployment Limitations

Many SMTP servers are poorly configured and = perform arbitrary and in many cases capricious modifications to messages as = they are transmitted.

SMTP Client Limitations

Adding features to SMTP clients is a slow = process.

Separate Servers for Incoming and Outgoing Mail

Enterprises are increasingly using separate mail = servers for incoming and outgoing mail. Even if the end user interacts with a = single server it is likely that incoming mail will be pre-processed by some form of = mail proxy, particularly if anti-spam filtering is being performed.

Network Protocol Access Limitations

Many ISPs limit or block completely use of certain = Internet protocols. These blocks may be imposed for a variety of reasons that = include preventing spam, service differentiation and caprice.

Alternative Approaches

The proposals in this paper are designed to = communicate consent within a =91push=92 distribution protocol in which the transfer = of the message to the recipient is initiated by the originator of the message. = Several authors have suggested the replacement of the push mechanism of SMTP = with a =91pull=92 protocol in which the subscriber initiates message transfer = as a means of mitigating the spam problems.

A pull mode protocol provides the subscriber with = direct control over their subscription. The client only presents messages to = the user from sources that the user has subscribed to. The chief disadvantage of = a pull mode protocol is that it requires the client to continuously poll the = service to check for updates.

Network News Transfer Protocol

Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) was = originally designed as a means of improving mailing list management.

Individual users pull articles from a local news = server that subscribes to one or more of the newsgroups in the Usenet hierarchy or = one of a large number of private hierarchies. Each NNTP news server is a peer = and articles are exchanged between news servers by means of a simplistic = flood fill protocol.

The chief disadvantage of presenting NNTP as a = spam solution is its vulnerability to spam when operated in peer-to-peer mode. The = term spam was originally applied to a junk posting on Usenet which appeared many = years before email spam became common, let alone a significant problem.

Although the NNTP protocol does not mandate the = use of peer-to-peer exchanges custom and practice strongly discourages use as = a direct publication mechanism. While this mode of use is very efficient for = high traffic newsgroups with a wide audience it is exceptionally inefficient = for newsgroups of limited interest.

Really Simple Syndication

Really Simple Syndication (RSS) is an XML data = structure that allows news sites and Web-log =91blog=92 sites to provide = notification of updates to the site.

RSS allows publishers to support rich user = interfaces with formatted text, sound and video.

The chief disadvantage of RSS is that it is an = emerging protocol and RSS capable clients are currently very rare. While RSS may = play a significant role in the future of Internet based subscription = publishing it is unlikely to be effective as a near term spam solution.

Modifications to Email

The chief deficiency in the email protocols with = respect to the requirements is that an incoming mail server has no means of = determining whether a recipient did legitimately consent to opt-in.

Existing Features Insufficiently Observed

Many of the problems with mailing lists could be = addressed by simply deploying the existing proposals in [RFC2369]. These provide = a mechanism that allows mailing lists to use URIs to specify how users = can perform functions unsubscribe from a list.

A header of particular interest in this = specification is the Mailing-List header = that uniquely identifies a mailing list.

Communicating Consent to an Email Server

There are a variety of means by which consent may = be communicated to an email server. For example the end user could = digitally sign a consent form that would accompany each message sent. Such a mechanism = would incur a major overhead since every message sent would significantly = increase in size. Alternatively, the consent form could be uploaded to the incoming = mail server. This would require the mail server to store a considerable = amount of state.

We propose a mechanism that minimizes the need for = state maintenance at each stage in the mail transfer protocol, avoiding the = need for additional per user records to be stored at either the incoming or = outgoing servers.

Initialization

The incoming mail server establishes a shared = secret k. In the case that there are multiple incoming servers the shared secret = may be established manually or by means of some form of key agreement protocol = using public key based credentials.

Once established, the shared secret is maintained = for an extended time period such as a year. Incoming mail servers must keep a = record of all shared secrets that have ever been used and the validity = intervals in which they were used.

Confirmation Code

During the subscription process we establish a = confirmation code that is cryptographically bound to the mailing list name, the = recipient email address and the date of subscription by means of the shared = secret:

Code =3D MAC (mailing-list, recipient, date)

Where

list
The string the mailing list will use in the Mailing-List header

recipient
The email address of the recipient

date
The day on which the subscription took place.

Each message sent from the mailing list contains a Confirmation-Code header as follows:

Confirmation-Code: <date> <confirmation>

The mailing list already needs to maintain a = per-subscriber record of mailing addresses. The additional state required to support = the confirmation code protocol is negligible.

We require the subscription date to be stored = explicitly for two reasons, first it requires the mailing list administrator to take = notice of the age of subscriptions, secondly it allows the incoming mail server = to reject mail with a stale confirmation code that is many years old. This allows = a mail server to reject mail sent to a mailing list that a previous holder of = an account name subscribed to.

The incoming mail server can authenticate a = confirmation code (but not the attached message) by means of the shared secret. Note = that it is not necessary for the MAC algorithm to be standardized, it is = sufficient for the sender and receiver to use the same one.

Subscription Process

The confirmation code is generated during the = subscription process and communicated to the mailing list server.

We assume that any subscription process involves a confirmation process by means of an email callback loop challenge. The = incoming mail server detects a mailing list request for subscription = confirmation and causes it to be redirected so that the appropriate confirmation code = can be added.

The callback loop challenge contains a new header constructed as follows:

Challenge-Code: <mailing-list> <recipient> = <opaque>

Where

mailing-list
The string the mailing list will use in the Mailing-List header

recipient
The email address of the recipient

opaque
An opaque code defined by the mailing list confirmation server to be = used for confirmation purposes.

If the user responds to the confirmation request = the appropriate challenge code is generated and forwarded to the indicated = address along with the opaque code to establish that the user did intend to = subscribe.

Legacy Subscriptions

The confirmation code protocol must support = gradual introduction. It must be possible for a mailing list to deploy the = protocol without having to re-subscribe existing users. It would be advantageous = if this can be achieved in such a way that allows a mailing list administrator = to be able to deploy the protocol incrementally and still be able to = establish that unsolicited messages are never sent.

When a mailing list server sends a message to a = legacy subscriber the confirmation-code header is still present but only the = date field is filled, the confirmation field is absent. This alerts the = incoming server to the fact that the message is purported to be a legacy = subscription.

If the incoming server supports the confirmation = code protocol it may query the user to determine whether the subscription is actually authorized and if so provide the relevant confirmation code to = the mailing list server to avoid the need for subsequent authorizations. =

A similar procedure may be employed when the = confirmation code protocol is deployed on an existing incoming mail server. In this = case it is recommended that the service provide some mechanism to allow the = user to send confirmation codes to a group of mailing lists at the same = time.

Mailing list administrators may defend themselves = against malicious allegations by having a copy of the mailing list signed by a = digital notary at the time the protocol is deployed. The signature format may = be chosen in such a way that validity of each entry in the list may be determined independently without revealing any information about any other list = member. Various schemes suggest themselves including use of Merkle hash trees = or the XML Signature manifest object. It is recommended that any mechanism = chosen use a random mask value within each entry to prevent attackers from finding = out that a specified party has subscribed to a list.

This information could be made available through = some form of protocol, however it is likely that requiring existing users to = re-subscribe will prove more attractive.

Revocation of Confirmation Codes

The mechanism described only provides for the = authenticity of subscription requests to be established. No assurance is provided = for un-subscription requests, nor is the protocol easily modified to = achieve this directly.

The confirmation code is cryptographically bound = to the mailing list identifier. An incoming mail server or spam filtering = application can filter incoming mail on the basis of the mailing list identifier. = Although this requires the service to maintain state the overhead is minimal and = saves considerable resources in the long run. A mailing list may choose not = to observe requests to unsubscribe but there is no incentive to do so if = the messages are unlikely to be read.

Security Considerations

Replay Attack

The consent to receive mechanism provides proof = that the recipient of an email message has consented to receive messages from a specified source. It does not provide definitive proof that a = particular message originates from the source specified.

An attacker that obtains a consent token for a = particular recipient/sender combination can generate an arbitrary volume of = messages containing the token.

This vulnerability is unlikely to represent a = significant risk in the context of spam mitigation. It is highly unlikely that a = spammer could obtain a sufficiently large number of consent tokens to make bulk distribution of spam through this mechanism feasible.

The vulnerability may be eliminated through use of = the consent token mechanism in combination with an authentication = mechanism.

References

[RFC2369]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc= 2369.txt

[ListSpec]=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://www.nisto.com/listspec/

[RSS] =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://blogs.law.harvard.= edu/tech/rss

------_=_NextPart_000_01C3AD30.63ACCB90-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 12:31:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23715 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnDK-0002Za-Jx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHHV2Qm009884 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnDK-0002ZL-EV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:02 -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 MAA23666 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnDI-0002gN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnDI-0002gK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnDJ-0002Vl-0r; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALnD9-0002VN-Dw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:51 -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 MAA23663 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnD7-0002gD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:49 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALnD7-0002gA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:30:49 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAHHTgqf017713; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:42 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E02424E2E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Mark Baugher , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:42 -0800 Status: O I was using the term PKI in a very general sense rather than as a synonym for X.509v3/PKIX. As you may be aware I am the principal advocate of key centric PKI with the XKMS protocol. In this particular case I do not see that there is a huge value to making the distinction. The real issue is accreditation of the sender entity, whether it be an ISP or an Enterprise sending email. That is the step that provides the risk reduction. At a minimum you want to establish that if the email turns out to be spam you know where to find the sender. [Here I will resist telling the story involving the Chaos Computer Club, the Pick'n Pack bar, some irate system administrators and a number of baseball bats] The accreditation of the sender entity requires an infrastructure, even if you do not use public key. That is where all the incremental costs are at any rate. I will accept that we could use public key for authentication only without using an accreditation infrastructure. So in this scenario we would put the hash of a public key in the DNS and sign each message. I don't see a great deal of advantage to this configuration unless DNSSEC is also deployed. If you fear a spammer spoofing the LMAP record then you also have to fear spoofing of the delegation. This gets us into a whole can of worms. First DNSSEC if deployed from the root is unquestionably a PKI. It has all the problems of PKI deployment - how to convince ICANN and the registrars to participate in PKI deployment. In addition we have a specification that is uneconomic to deploy in large zones. So instead of DNSSEC being a low cost alternative to X.509 PKI the current specs would require key registration to be considerably more expensive. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:48 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals > > > Phill > Thanks for posting this. I have not had enough time to > review it but > have some opinions from my first read. My first comment is > that you use > "PKI" in place of "PKC" but the latter is the more general > technology and > we should keep our options open at this point. > > Mark > At 07:16 PM 11/14/2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >I have no idea where the attached fits in the hierarchy. It > is a survey of > >various approaches to authentication and accreditation. > Members may wish to > >read and comment. > > > >The format is HTML, lets see if the mailing list will take it. > > > > Phill > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 15:02:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01412 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALpZl-0002HR-Sd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHK2LS5008765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALpZl-0002HI-Mx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:21 -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 PAA01405 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALpZi-0005KC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALpZi-0005K9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALpZR-0002Ec-SV; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALpYZ-0002Di-QC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:01:07 -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 PAA01350 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALpYW-0005HT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:01:04 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALpYW-0005Gs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:01:04 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2003 12:01:42 -0800 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-413.cisco.com [10.21.65.157]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAHK0VrY004605; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:00:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117094928.03666d50@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Mark Baugher Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E02424E2E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E02424E2E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:00:29 -0800 Status: O I don't doubt that you were using PKI to mean more than X.509 PKI because, among other things, the web page references PGP. That' fine, but since asrg is a _research_ group, I don't think we want to limit ourselves to public-key cryptosystems that require an infrastructure, particularly during a requirements phase of work. Mark At 09:29 AM 11/17/2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >I was using the term PKI in a very general sense rather than as a synonym >for X.509v3/PKIX. As you may be aware I am the principal advocate of key >centric PKI with the XKMS protocol. > > >In this particular case I do not see that there is a huge value to making >the distinction. The real issue is accreditation of the sender entity, >whether it be an ISP or an Enterprise sending email. That is the step that >provides the risk reduction. At a minimum you want to establish that if the >email turns out to be spam you know where to find the sender. > >[Here I will resist telling the story involving the Chaos Computer Club, the >Pick'n Pack bar, some irate system administrators and a number of baseball >bats] > >The accreditation of the sender entity requires an infrastructure, even if >you do not use public key. That is where all the incremental costs are at >any rate. > > >I will accept that we could use public key for authentication only without >using an accreditation infrastructure. So in this scenario we would put the >hash of a public key in the DNS and sign each message. > >I don't see a great deal of advantage to this configuration unless DNSSEC is >also deployed. If you fear a spammer spoofing the LMAP record then you also >have to fear spoofing of the delegation. > >This gets us into a whole can of worms. First DNSSEC if deployed from the >root is unquestionably a PKI. It has all the problems of PKI deployment - >how to convince ICANN and the registrars to participate in PKI deployment. >In addition we have a specification that is uneconomic to deploy in large >zones. So instead of DNSSEC being a low cost alternative to X.509 PKI the >current specs would require key registration to be considerably more >expensive. > > > Phill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:48 AM > > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals > > > > > > Phill > > Thanks for posting this. I have not had enough time to > > review it but > > have some opinions from my first read. My first comment is > > that you use > > "PKI" in place of "PKC" but the latter is the more general > > technology and > > we should keep our options open at this point. > > > > Mark > > At 07:16 PM 11/14/2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >I have no idea where the attached fits in the hierarchy. It > > is a survey of > > >various approaches to authentication and accreditation. > > Members may wish to > > >read and comment. > > > > > >The format is HTML, lets see if the mailing list will take it. > > > > > > Phill > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 16:20:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05918 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqnM-0006ft-4n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHLKRTG025653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqnL-0006fb-Hs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:27 -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 QAA05860 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqnJ-0006S0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqnJ-0006Rx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqmw-0006bh-IR; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:20:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqmo-0006bA-43 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:19:54 -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 QAA05738 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqml-0006Qh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:19:51 -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 1ALqml-0006QY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:19:51 -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 1ALqqc-0008Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:23:50 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:31:25 PST." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131D3@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: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:23:48 -0500 Status: O "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > LMAP is clearly not going to eliminate all spam, why is it important then? > The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, impersonation > spam. I'm starting work on an SMTP evaluation document. It will discuss why spam is worse in SMTP than any other protocol. The goal of the document is to give us concrete reasons as to why spam is such a problem in SMTP. Once we know that, we will then know why certain proposals are useful, and what impact they have on spam, and on non-spam uses of SMTP. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 16:25:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06217 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqrp-0006xN-Mg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHLP5wO026735 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqrp-0006x8-Fe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:05 -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 QAA06193 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqrm-0006Xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqrm-0006Xe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqrl-0006uU-AT; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALqr7-0006sd-JF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:21 -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 QAA06141 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALqr5-0006X2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:19 -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 1ALqr5-0006Wy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:19 -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 1ALqux-0008R8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:28:19 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:58:23 GMT." <20031113095823.GB11525@f-prot.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:28:18 -0500 Status: O Fridrik Skulason wrote: > One point to consider: Anything that will eliminate impersonation spam will > also have a drastic effect on computer worms. It might be easier to push > a solution that will not only help with one problem (spam) but another > (worms) as well. It will not eliminate either problem of course, but it > will help with both. Exactly. Further, once the worms are forced to (ab)-use local MTA's to propogate, their propogation rate will go down significantly. The experience we had locally before installing filtering software was that 1-2 machines sending worms through the corporate MTA would effectively DoS the MTA, and prevent further spread. LMAP can also be known as "making your local network screw-ups affect you more than it affects me." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 16:52:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07607 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALrI2-0000Wo-Ip for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHLqA2a002024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALrI2-0000WZ-Am for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:10 -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 QAA07596 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALrI0-000723-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALrHz-000720-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALrHs-0000So-LL; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALrHT-0000Rs-ST for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:35 -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 QAA07562 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALrHR-00071M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:33 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALrHR-00070v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:51:33 -0500 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-413.cisco.com [10.21.65.157]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAHLp0rY016206; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:51:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117135034.03f32c48@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Alan DeKok" From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:50:59 -0800 Status: O At 01:23 PM 11/17/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: >"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > > LMAP is clearly not going to eliminate all spam, why is it important then? > > The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, impersonation > > spam. > > I'm starting work on an SMTP evaluation document. It will discuss >why spam is worse in SMTP than any other protocol. Which protocols are you comparing it to? Mark >The goal of the >document is to give us concrete reasons as to why spam is such a >problem in SMTP. Once we know that, we will then know why certain >proposals are useful, and what impact they have on spam, and on >non-spam uses of SMTP. > > Alan DeKok. > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 18:14:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12885 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALsZY-0006Fa-I0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHNEKN4024020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALsZY-0006FL-Cr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:20 -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 SAA12823 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALsZV-00012d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALsZV-00012a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALsZF-0006Ba-AZ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALsZD-0006BP-2R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:13:59 -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 SAA12791 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:13:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALsZA-00012V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:13:56 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALsZ9-00012Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:13:55 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003111723132501400q81tme>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:13:25 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.100]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEF218685 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:18:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FB95615.7090306@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117135034.03f32c48@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117135034.03f32c48@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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, 17 Nov 2003 18:13:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Mark Baugher wrote: > At 01:23 PM 11/17/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > >> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >> > LMAP is clearly not going to eliminate all spam, why is it important >> then? >> > The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, >> impersonation >> > spam. >> >> I'm starting work on an SMTP evaluation document. It will discuss >> why spam is worse in SMTP than any other protocol. > > > Which protocols are you comparing it to? > > Mark > The following are probably the most important to compare to: NNTP instant messaging (ICQ, AOL, MSN, YHO, etc.) cell-phone 'texting' Did I miss any that are crucial? -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 18:44:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14196 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALt2V-0008Pa-Rh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAHNiFug032335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALt2V-0008PS-LU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:15 -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 SAA14192 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALt2S-0001cK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALt2S-0001cH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALt2G-0008NC-Lh; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALt22-0008Mq-7B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:43:46 -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 SAA14185 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALt1z-0001c7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:43:43 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALt1y-0001c4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:43:42 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp169267.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.100.49]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E8256408A; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:43:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: esr@thyrsus.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200311141636.hAEGajmI008998@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311152303.28414.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <20031116162110.GA23035@thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031116162110.GA23035@thyrsus.com> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311172343.13914.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:43:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:21, you (ESR) wrote: > Marc A. Pelletier : > > "A sender is /not/ spamming if he sends a message with the justified > > expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to perceive > > the message as spam." > > Interesting idea, but that double negaive is confusing and has to go. Grammatically, yes, but I'd be loathe to reverse the sense of the statement. If we were trying to draft a legal document (which I realise we're not) this would be an 'active defense'; we're not saying what spam is, but we're allowing one way to determine what isn't. "A sender is spamming if he sends a message without the justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to perceive the message as spam." How is that? English is not my native language, so while I still perceive two negations it might still be grammatically sounder (and clearer)? I'm a bit worried, though, because I think that also changes the meaning in a sublte and undesirable way; am I the only one to read that version as defining a restrictive metric for spam rather than defining a "this is not spam and here's why" defense? Though if this is acceptable, it allows us to clean up the statement and take the sender out entierly: "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to perceive it as spam." Stiill two negatives in there, though. The problem is that "[...] was sent with the justified expectation [...] are going to perceive it as spam." doesn't mean the same thing at all even though the two negatives are reversed. You are a considerably better wordcraft in english than I, so I appreciate your input on this. -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 19:01:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14643 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtIs-0000XU-Hj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI01AkK002066 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtIs-0000XD-AB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:10 -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 TAA14630 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:00:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtIp-0001sT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtIo-0001sQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtIi-0000TS-KR; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:01:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtI8-0000Sd-Rw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:00:24 -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 TAA14613 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtI5-0001pL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:00:21 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtI4-0001ol-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:00:21 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.153] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A0BC1035006C; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:58:52 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <200311172343.13914.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> thread-index: AcOtZMYxssIIWqONT7a+jHkkUyl4GQAAIBDg Message-Id: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (271908972) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (271908972) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 17 Nov 2003 18:58:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O FWIW: I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it is based on context. Here's a try at some way of stating it: A message is SPAM when the recipients have no interest in reciving the message and have not requested or authorized the sender to transmit such messages to them. Keys: A) did not ask for it. B) do not want it. C) has no "Value" to recipients. D) sender generaly not known to recipients. HTH > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:43 PM > To: esr@thyrsus.com > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document > > On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:21, you (ESR) wrote: > > Marc A. Pelletier : > > > "A sender is /not/ spamming if he sends a message with > the justified > > > expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to > > > perceive the message as spam." > > > > Interesting idea, but that double negaive is confusing and > has to go. > > Grammatically, yes, but I'd be loathe to reverse the sense of > the statement. > If we were trying to draft a legal document (which I realise > we're not) this would be an 'active defense'; we're not > saying what spam is, but we're allowing one way to determine > what isn't. > > "A sender is spamming if he sends a message without the > justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are > not going to perceive the message as spam." > > How is that? English is not my native language, so while I > still perceive two negations it might still be grammatically > sounder (and clearer)? > > I'm a bit worried, though, because I think that also changes > the meaning in a sublte and undesirable way; am I the only > one to read that version as defining a restrictive metric for > spam rather than defining a "this is not spam and here's why" defense? > > Though if this is acceptable, it allows us to clean up the > statement and take the sender out entierly: > > "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified > expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going > to perceive it as spam." > > Stiill two negatives in there, though. The problem is that > "[...] was sent with the justified expectation [...] are > going to perceive it as spam." > doesn't mean the same thing at all even though the two > negatives are reversed. > > You are a considerably better wordcraft in english than I, so > I appreciate your input on this. > > -- Marc A. Pelletier > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 17 19:35:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15559 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtpk-000272-BB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI0Z8BB008114 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtpk-00026n-5X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:08 -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 TAA15550 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:34:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtpi-0002L5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtph-0002L2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:35:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtfy-0001iC-8a; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALtfY-0001gD-Ou for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:24:36 -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 TAA15191 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:24:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtfX-00029n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:24:35 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALtfW-00029k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:24:34 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp169267.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.100.49]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5D356408A; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:24:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> In-Reply-To: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:24:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Monday 17 November 2003 18:58, Denny Figuerres wrote: > FWIW: I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it > is based on context. And, indeed, that is one of the reasons I feel it is important to define it! Part of the problem is that there are, and will be, "punitive" measures taken against spammers. Anyone can take some random message and claim it is spam then point an accusing finger at the sender. Conflict ensues. In fact, detractors of many blacklists point to this as a major problem, and I would tend to agree. > A message is SPAM when the recipients have no interest in reciving the > message > and have not requested or authorized the sender to transmit such messages > to them. > > Keys: > A) did not ask for it. > B) do not want it. > C) has no "Value" to recipients. > D) sender generaly not known to recipients. I'm trying to define spam in a way that /specifically/ excludes the recipient's opinion about a particular message. A) and D) I think most everyone can agree on as minimal criterion for most sorts of spam, but B) and C) are strictly subjective, and thus subject for abuse. For instance, if I have a web site about show dog breeding and someone mails me poodle breeding hints, the sender was justified in thinking I might not see it spam regardless of whether I think poodles are horrible little monsters or not. Arguably the same for a dog breeding supplies advertisement. That justification would doubtless vanish if it's penile enlagement herbal supplements. So we're not talking about independence from contents, but about how I was chosen as a recipient. In fact, if my address had been chosen (on purpose) from a website where I decry my despair at being unable to purchase all-natural herbal alternatives to viagra, the sender *would* be justified in sending me what we would all normally agree is spam on that topic. > > -----Original Message----- Please Oh Please Oh Please don't top-post! -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 20:15:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16856 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuSS-0004ia-GS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI1F8jA018130 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuSS-0004iL-At for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:08 -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 UAA16835 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuSQ-0002pL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuSP-0002pI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuSM-0004g4-2V; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuRY-0004fG-AU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:12 -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 UAA16826 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuRW-0002ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:10 -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 1ALuRV-0002ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:09 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-369-333.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.157.25]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOI006LMWMZWP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:11:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP In-reply-to: <3FB95615.7090306@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB971BA.5060908@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031117135034.03f32c48@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <3FB95615.7090306@zemos.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:11:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Philip Miller wrote: > Mark Baugher wrote: > >> At 01:23 PM 11/17/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >>> > LMAP is clearly not going to eliminate all spam, why is it >>> important then? >>> > The answer is that it will eliminate the worst types of spam, >>> impersonation >>> > spam. >>> >>> I'm starting work on an SMTP evaluation document. It will discuss >>> why spam is worse in SMTP than any other protocol. >> >> >> Which protocols are you comparing it to? >> > The following are probably the most important to compare to: > NNTP > instant messaging (ICQ, AOL, MSN, YHO, etc.) > cell-phone 'texting' > > Did I miss any that are crucial? > FYI, IETF's IM protocols are called IMPP, SIP and XMPP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 20:19:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16966 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuWF-00050P-EN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI1J3BR019235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuWF-00050A-9n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:03 -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 UAA16953 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuWD-0002ur-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuWC-0002un-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuWD-0004uF-GY; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuVU-0004tT-CE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:18:16 -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 UAA16933 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuVS-0002u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:18:14 -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 1ALuVR-0002te-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:18:13 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-369-333.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.157.25]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOI00CTLWXFEY@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:17:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document In-reply-to: <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> To: "Marc A. Pelletier" Cc: denny@figuerres.com, asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FB97332.90202@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:17:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On Monday 17 November 2003 18:58, Denny Figuerres wrote: > >> FWIW: I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it >>is based on context. > > > And, indeed, that is one of the reasons I feel it is important to define it! > Part of the problem is that there are, and will be, "punitive" measures taken > against spammers. Anyone can take some random message and claim it is spam > then point an accusing finger at the sender. Conflict ensues. > > In fact, detractors of many blacklists point to this as a major problem, and I > would tend to agree. > > >>A message is SPAM when the recipients have no interest in reciving the >>message >>and have not requested or authorized the sender to transmit such messages >>to them. >> >>Keys: >>A) did not ask for it. >>B) do not want it. >>C) has no "Value" to recipients. >>D) sender generaly not known to recipients. > > > I'm trying to define spam in a way that /specifically/ excludes the > recipient's opinion about a particular message. A) and D) I think most > everyone can agree on as minimal criterion for most sorts of spam, but B) and > C) are strictly subjective, and thus subject for abuse. > > For instance, if I have a web site about show dog breeding and someone mails > me poodle breeding hints, the sender was justified in thinking I might not > see it spam regardless of whether I think poodles are horrible little > monsters or not. Arguably the same for a dog breeding supplies > advertisement. > > That justification would doubtless vanish if it's penile enlagement herbal > supplements. So we're not talking about independence from contents, but > about how I was chosen as a recipient. > > In fact, if my address had been chosen (on purpose) from a website where I > decry my despair at being unable to purchase all-natural herbal alternatives > to viagra, the sender *would* be justified in sending me what we would all > normally agree is spam on that topic. > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > > Please Oh Please Oh Please don't top-post! > > -- Marc A. Pelletier > Historically all discussions on the definition of spam in the group have not come to a fruitful conclusion. According to the technical considerations document, the term "unsolicited bulk email" is used as a working definition. See the following: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt http://www.opengroup.org/messaging/public/oct-2003/spam/shafranovich.pdf (sections 2.1-2.3) Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 17 20:31:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17375 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuhu-0005SO-Go for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI1V6Lo020970 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuhu-0005S9-A4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:06 -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 UAA17359 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuhs-00034m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuhr-00034j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuho-0005Pu-BP; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALuhf-0005PW-Ep for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:51 -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 UAA17356 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuhd-00034f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:49 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALuhc-00034c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:48 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAI1UjGU008095; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:45 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAI1Uj6l030591; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:45 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI1Ujp0030589; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:45 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Marc A. Pelletier" , denny@figuerres.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document Message-ID: <20031118013045.GA28371@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <3FB97332.90202@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB97332.90202@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 17 Nov 2003 20:30:45 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > Historically all discussions on the definition of spam in the group have > not come to a fruitful conclusion. According to the technical > considerations document, the term "unsolicited bulk email" is used as a > working definition. See the following: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt > http://www.opengroup.org/messaging/public/oct-2003/spam/shafranovich.pdf > (sections 2.1-2.3) In case there is any doubt in the matter, I am fully behind this definition and have no desire to take us down terminological black holes. My glossary-writing was intended to support it, not dispute it. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 02:04:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29232 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALztl-0003Jk-6c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI73f5C012748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALztj-0003JX-Mr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:39 -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 CAA28676 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALztg-00072m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALztf-00072h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALzt8-0003EP-Ql; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ALzt6-0003Dd-HU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:03:00 -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 CAA27995 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ALzt2-000723-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:02:57 -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 1ALzt2-00071h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:02:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-369-333.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.157.25]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOJ006BMCRUIX@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:59:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FB9C366.90805@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Stenography and spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:59:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Just came across a website that hides messages inside spam. See: http://www.spammimic.com/index.shtml This has been mentioned before when discussing the time machine spammer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 03:30:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA10068 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM1FX-0000su-MG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAI8UFqd003395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM1FW-0000sg-7V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:14 -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 DAA10062 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM1FT-0000Q7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM1FT-0000Q4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM1FK-0000qN-Eu; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:30:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM1EQ-0000kh-Ol for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:29:06 -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 DAA10037 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM1EO-0000PR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:29:04 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM1EN-0000PO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:29:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 6158 invoked by uid 100); 18 Nov 2003 08:29:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam In-Reply-To: <3FB97332.90202@solidmatrix.com> References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Nov 2003 08:29:05 -0000 Status: O > Historically all discussions on the definition of spam in the group > have not come to a fruitful conclusion. According to the technical > considerations document, the term "unsolicited bulk email" is used > as a working definition. Alow me to second that sentiment. It's not very useful to talk about dealing with spam since the definitions people use range from "multiple substantially similar items of unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to more than N people in less than M time" to "any mail I don't want" and everyone knows that his definition is right and all the rest miss the point. Any anti-spam technical proposal should start by saying as specifically as possible what abuse it's intended to prevent or combat. The various LMAP proposals, for example, appear to me to be intended to detect forged domains in e-mail return addresses. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 08:40:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20404 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM65g-00054D-0p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIDeNpQ019463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM65f-00053W-QW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:23 -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 IAA20377 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM65e-0005MN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM65e-0005MK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM65M-0004x1-6p; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM64O-0004oE-KD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:04 -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 IAA20344 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:38:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM64N-0005LU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:03 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM64M-0005Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:02 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.153] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A09C1354006C; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:37:32 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <200311182128.25545.famous-asrg@nutters.org> thread-index: AcOtvv3NA32Hfs08QhqtMCYrJLPQkAAGai3w Message-Id: <200311180837201.SM01928@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (324272236) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (324272236) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 18 Nov 2003 08:37:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Brett Watson > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:28 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam > > Forget about defining "spam". At its broadest, "spam" is just > "anything that I deem inappropriate for my inbox". In its > narrower forms, "spam" is just a common specific instance of > that, like "unsolicited bulk email", but the specific > instance is not necessarily a pure subset of the general instance. > The general instance has the benefit of satisfying all > comers; the specific instance has the benefit of being > recipient-independent. > > In my view, the owner of a particular inbox is the proper > authority on what is appropriate for that inbox, and anything > which plans to be a solution to "spam" should therefore deal > with the problem in its broadest sense. Is there a compelling > reason to deal with recipient-specific instances of the > problem (even common ones), rather than the problem in general? > > The focus should be on how to empower mail *recipients* to > set their own mail policies and make everyone else deal with > it, as contrasted with the current situation in which the > *senders* have the upper hand. Why should I, as a mail > recipient, allow anything in my inbox that I don't want? A > perfect implementation of such an ideal is almost certainly > impossible, but that's the target we should be aiming for in > the fight against "spam". (No doubt this implies a research > direction, such as overcoming the ability of the sender to > lie with impunity, hence the spirit of LMAP.) > > It's possible that the fight against the general case will > involve the development of many specific countermeasures > (rather than a single general one), and the ability of > recipients to choose which countermeasures they apply, but > there is no question in my mind that the ASRG should approach > "spam" in its broadest sense. > > Regards, > TFBW > YES! Very well stated! I Agree with what is said above. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 18 08:42:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20502 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM67H-0005MT-5Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIDg3SO020603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM67H-0005ME-1F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:03 -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 IAA20493 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM67F-0005Nm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM67F-0005Nj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM67F-0005GJ-Ad; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM66Q-0005Co-0j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:41:10 -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 IAA20427 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM66O-0005Mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:41:08 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM66O-0005Mj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:41:08 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAIDf2a5010073; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:41:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:41:02 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131EE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'johnl@iecc.com'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:41:01 -0800 Status: O > Alow me to second that sentiment. It's not very useful to talk about > dealing with spam since the definitions people use range from > "multiple substantially similar items of unsolicited commercial e-mail > sent to more than N people in less than M time" to "any mail I don't > want" and everyone knows that his definition is right and all the rest > miss the point. You forget, "anything my spam control mechanism identifies as spam is spam". One of the reasons this debate gets heated is that there are folk wanting to move the goalposts. > Any anti-spam technical proposal should start by saying as > specifically as possible what abuse it's intended to prevent or > combat. The various LMAP proposals, for example, appear to me to be > intended to detect forged domains in e-mail return addresses. I think we need two definitions: 1) The problem the *users* want us to solve 2) The problem our solution addresses. For me the utility in having the first definition, requirements driven is that some spam control mechanisms transfers spam rather than eliminate it. For example C/R mechanisms reduce the spam for the user but increase my spam if I send email to someone using them. I believe the problem the users want us to solve is to eliminate unwanted and indiscriminate email. I don't think we can include bulk in the definition, I have no idea how many people get the penis enlargement spam. It is just as much of a nuisance as far as I am concerned if I am the only recipient. I have the same problem with allowing 'unsolicited' into the definition. I have no idea how to define unsolicited in a way some toe rag MBA will not figure out how to abuse. But I can say that the fact that sender had to hide the opt-out option from the user means that the sender knew that the recipients were unlikely to want the messages. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 08:46:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20601 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM6BA-0005Xd-Tt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIDk4va021261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM6BA-0005W0-Ld for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:04 -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 IAA20594 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM6B9-0005QI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM6B9-0005QF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM6B7-0005Tm-Tp; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM6AR-0005T3-P5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:19 -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 IAA20584 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM6AQ-0005Q3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:18 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM6AQ-0005Q0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:18 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp169267.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.100.49]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6C156408F; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:45:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311181344.51478.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:44:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Tuesday 18 November 2003 03:29, John R. Levine wrote: > Alow me to second that sentiment. It's not very useful to talk about > dealing with spam since the definitions people use range from > "multiple substantially similar items of unsolicited commercial e-mail > sent to more than N people in less than M time" to "any mail I don't > want" and everyone knows that his definition is right and all the rest > miss the point. *sigh* Obviously, you people have been badly burned by flames on the topic before because you obviously did not read what I was saying at all before your knee jerked. It's understandable, but /please/ take a moment of your time to consider what I'm saying. The *point* of my exercise was to define spam in a way that makes it *independent* on what the recipients define as spam (and, indeed, the reason for trying to come up with a definition is the (to me) obvious impossibility of defining spam consistently between individuals). While it is indeed unnecessary to define "spam" when examining a technical measure designed to alleviate a specific abuse of a communication infrastructure, it remains necessary to do so whenever we want to compare data points, quantify the problem, or even try to communicate amongst each other and/or the rest of the world. And, wether you like it or not, we are defining spam both implicitly and explicitly by communicating here-- but in a manner which is ambiguous at best and contradictory at worse. Indeed, vast tracts of the requirement document go about defining various sorts of spams simply because it attempts to discuss the general problem we are all here to try to solve. It is useful to discuss specific kinds of messages likely to be perceived as spam when we are discussing specific measures (like, indeed, "unsollicited bulk commercial email") because they share common properties. But I think that attempting to pegging the phenomenon of spam to any one such definition is dangerous because we then risk colouring our view. My latest attempt is: "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are willing to receive it." [for those of you keeping track-- you may notice I removed the double negative by making a leap of faith: that a recipient is unwilling to receive messages he percieves as spam, and willing otherwise] This holds interesting properties: - any message containing forged information or anti-anti-spam obfuscation becomes spam almost automatically [you cannot justify expecting the recipients are willing to receive something if you feel the need to include end-runs around measures designed to prevent reception!], but... - even if forged to try to ensure anonymity, a message sent by an individual to a recipient that is relevant is not spam [the omnipresent "human rights activist under an unfriendly governement trying to communicate with the press" counter-example] - messages sent to an harvested ("opt out") list become spam [you cannot justify expecting someone you know nothing about is willing to receive anything] - legitimate mailing lists are off the hook [expecting people who signed up for a mailing list are willing to receive the mailings is justified] - it's completely independent of the communication channel. It covers SMS just as well as email. Indeed, it would also properly classify a group of vickings drowning out your attempts to talk in a restaurant by loudly chanting. At any rate, when I apply that definition to my own personal view of what spam is when it hits my mailbox, it matches 99% of the time-- and the rare piece of mail that doesn't can be argued to not having been /meant/ to be spam. Do the exercise yourself. When you receive something, ask yourself "did the sender have justified expectation I would be willing to receive this"? I'm confident your answer will be "no" (almost?) all the time if the message fit your personal definition of spam and "yes" for all other messages. My definition ends up being *completely useless* when trying to discuss technical measures to prevent spam, because it does not, and should not, define "justified expectation" and "willing" in any technically implementable manner (although consent-based communication is exactly trying to define both). But is *is* useful when we want to discuss the general problem, or when we want to compare various classes of spam. -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 11:01:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27276 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8I1-0003zb-0n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIG1GMH015341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8I0-0003zM-RL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:16 -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 LAA27257 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8Hy-0007Tu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8Hx-0007Tr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8Hl-0003ww-Tt; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8H2-0003wF-OK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:16 -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 LAA27227 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8H0-0007Qr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:14 -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 1AM8Gz-0007Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:13 -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 1AM8Kz-0000Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:04:21 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:50:59 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031117135034.03f32c48@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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, 18 Nov 2003 11:04:21 -0500 Status: O Mark Baugher wrote: > > I'm starting work on an SMTP evaluation document. It will discuss > >why spam is worse in SMTP than any other protocol. > > Which protocols are you comparing it to? Instant messaging, etc. Philip Miller's post listed a few. SMTP has characteristics which not only make it amenable to send spam (as opposed to HTTP, for example), but which makes the spam problem *worse* in SMTP, than in any other protocol. The choices are then to narrow down the possibility of abuse within SMTP (which slows down spam), or to design a new message delivery protocol which doesn't have SMTP's flaws. The biggest problem with the second choice is not implementation or deployment costs, it's ensuring that any new protocol does NOT have SMTP's flaws. And without a serious analysis of SMTP, all effort put into designing, or talking about other protocols, is a waste of time. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 11:13:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27945 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8TS-0004nh-E8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIGD6SE018447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8TS-0004nS-9H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:06 -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 LAA27934 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8TR-0007iG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8TR-0007iD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8TM-0004lH-4x; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8TB-0004ks-N5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:12:49 -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 LAA27925 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:12:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8TA-0007hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:12:48 -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 1AM8TA-0007hv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:12:48 -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 1AM8XA-0000FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:16:56 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "18 Nov 2003 08:29:05 GMT." <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.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, 18 Nov 2003 11:16:55 -0500 Status: O johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > Any anti-spam technical proposal should start by saying as > specifically as possible what abuse it's intended to prevent or > combat. The various LMAP proposals, for example, appear to me to be > intended to detect forged domains in e-mail return addresses. The various proposals, and the LMAP dicussion document define exactly what problems they're trying to solve: forgery of names in EHLO/HELO, and MAIL FROM. The worst cases of such forgeries (from a monetary view) are "joe jobs", and the "please send us your account information" messages. I'm hesitant to call them "spam", because the abuse of email is a side effect of the underlying criminal behaviour: fraud. Other forgeries are caused by worms and viruses. I'm also hesitant to call these "spam", as the abuse of email is a side effect of the underlying criminal behaviour: a desire to infect machines. Messages related to businesses asking people "please buy from me" fall more obviously into the "spam" category, IMHO. The LMAP related proposals do nothing to prevent these messages, and the proposals are not intended to prevent these messages. So to a large extent, the LMAP proposals don't deal with spam. They deal with preventing and/or tracking down criminal behaviour. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 11:42:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29571 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8va-0007BF-QX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIGgAOm027595 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8va-0007B0-JO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:10 -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 LAA29564 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8vZ-0000Vv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8vZ-0000Vs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8vR-00077u-8r; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM8us-00077G-Ov for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:41:26 -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 LAA29544 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8ur-0000VM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:41:25 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM8uq-0000VJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:41:25 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AM8uq-0006Rj-0Q for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:41:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:41:24 +0000 Status: O Not meaning to presume on the role of the chairs... It would probably be useful if those who haven't taken the trouble to read the charter of this group - did so. http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html It might also be instructive to check out the archives of this list. Here's a good one: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07341.html Spam definitions? No thanks. We have a "consent-based communication" model. Spam is the other stuff :-) Rgds, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 12:06:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01162 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM9JA-00010q-EK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIH6Wfa003888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM9JA-00010d-8r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:32 -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 MAA01128 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM9J8-00016X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM9J8-00016U-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM9Ig-0000pm-4e; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AM9IE-0000oC-7l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:34 -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 MAA01081 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM9IC-000154-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:32 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AM9IC-00014z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:32 -0500 Received: from 192.168.2.100 (MTL-HSE-ppp169267.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.100.49]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C3656408F; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Cc: "Jon Kyme" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:05:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:41, Jon Kyme wrote: > Not meaning to presume on the role of the chairs... > It would probably be useful if those who haven't taken the trouble to read > the charter of this group - did so. > > http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html I have. The charter simply notes the problem defining spam and punts on the problem. > It might also be instructive to check out the archives of this list. > Here's a good one: > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07341.html > > > Spam definitions? No thanks. We have a "consent-based communication" model. > Spam is the other stuff :-) Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. The message is clear, and I will act accordingly. -- Marc A. Pelletier _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 14:00:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07200 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMB5D-0008DK-G4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIJ0EZB031563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMB5A-0008D0-Tp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:12 -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 OAA07169 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMB58-0003GH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMB58-0003GE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMB50-0008Ai-Sk; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMB4G-00089m-UL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:59:16 -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 NAA07094 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMB4E-0003ET-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:59:14 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMB4E-0003EP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:59:14 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AMB4E-0005Fd-6h for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:59:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:59:14 +0000 Status: O > > the charter of this group - did so. > > > > http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html > > > I have. The charter simply notes the problem defining spam and punts on > the > problem. > Exactly - it punts on the problem to the *recipient*, which is of course where the decision should be made. [snip] > Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. > The > message is clear, and I will act accordingly. > Ooh - I've never thought of myself as the establishment before. This question has been dealt with on a number of occasions (by the chairs and others). The point is that we're not really here to talk about "spam", we're here to talk about how one might enable recipients to deal with what *they* call spam. This will (I'd guess)include considerations of what recipients call spam, i.e. the definitions (emphasis on plural) that may be used. Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 14:59:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10207 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMC0M-00032f-Pp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIJxI82011689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMC0M-00032S-M9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:18 -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 OAA10196 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMC0J-0004Qa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMC0J-0004QX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMC05-000308-86; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMBzf-0002zT-3R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:58:35 -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 OAA10147 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:58:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMBzc-0004PL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:58:32 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMBzb-0004Ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:58:31 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2003 12:06:17 -0800 Received: from cscoamera13263.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-117.cisco.com [10.21.96.117]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAIJvwrY001034 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:57:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031118114506.03ccde78@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam In-Reply-To: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> References: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:57:56 -0800 Status: O > > > > Not meaning to presume on the role of the chairs... > > It would probably be useful if those who haven't taken the trouble to read > > the charter of this group - did so. > > > > http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html > >I have. The charter simply notes the problem defining spam and punts on the >problem. As far as charters go, the asrg charter looked pretty good to me when I first read it. It still does. Having written a few charters before, I think it sets the framework well for the work that is underway. > > It might also be instructive to check out the archives of this list. > > Here's a good one: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07341.html > > > > > > Spam definitions? No thanks. We have a "consent-based communication" model. > > Spam is the other stuff :-) > >Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. The >message is clear, and I will act accordingly. A group that revises its charter frequently is taking a random walk. Unless there is something wrong with the direction of the group, I think asrg should deliver some of the work that is described on its charter before opening discussions on changing it. That is what we did in the Secure Multicast Research Group when it became clear to most of us that the charter was too narrow. We delivered secure multicast technology to the IETF and then re-chartered the secure multicast RG to become the group security RG. Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 16:16:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16823 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMDCw-0000cE-EL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAILGM1E002360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMDCw-0000bz-8q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:22 -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 QAA16754 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMDCu-0006KO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMDCu-0006HI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:16:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMDAe-0000No-Tz; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMDA3-0000Ir-QJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:23 -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 QAA16449 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMDA2-0006D4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:22 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMDA1-0006Cr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:21 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAILDAlm014934; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:13:10 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131EF@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Marc A. Pelletier'" , asrg@ietf.org Cc: Jon Kyme Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:13:06 -0800 Status: O >Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. The >message is clear, and I will act accordingly. I think the consensus of the group is that defining spam is outside the scope of the group, this having led to vitriolic and unproductive arguments. Discussion of the requirements for a solution to the problem of unwanted mail is according to my reading in scope (we have a draft on the subject anyhow). I think that deciding to allow partial solutions to the spam problem is the most productive step the group has taken. I remember the early days of the group where any suggestion that was judged less than 120% perfect was subjected to torrents of abuse. I think we should design mechanisms that solve what we conceive of as the problem and leave the decision as to whether we have succeeded to the users and the spammers. We are in a war here and as any (good) general knows it victory is decided by the opposition. We will not have succeeded completely until the attackers have given up. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 17:28:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21756 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEKj-0005QP-65 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIMST3q020847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEKj-0005QA-0x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:29 -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 RAA21744 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEKg-0000ok-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEKg-0000oh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEKH-0005Kk-El; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEJd-0005J4-63 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:27:21 -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 RAA21673 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEJa-0000md-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:27:18 -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 1AMEJZ-0000lA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:27:18 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-869.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.139.187]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOK0002QJNLSQ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:26:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBA9C80.20400@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - New announce list created for 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:26:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O A new read-only low-traffic list has been created for ASRG announcements. It is called: asrg-announce@ietf.org To subscribe to that list, please email asrg-announce-request@ietf.org with the word "subscribe" in the subject line or visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg-announce. This list, asrg@ietf.org, will continue as an open discussion list for the group. If you have any questions, please contact the chairs. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 17:46:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22689 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEbv-0006oj-81 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIMkF3D026199 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEbv-0006oS-1g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:15 -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 RAA22666 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEbs-0001NY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEbr-0001NV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:46:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEbi-0006kh-9v; Tue, 18 Nov 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 1AMEb1-0006kF-TP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:45:19 -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 RAA22646 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEaz-0001Jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:45:17 -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 1AMEay-0001JH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:45:17 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-869.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.139.187]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOK0016PKGPP0@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:43:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam In-reply-to: <200311181344.51478.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> To: "Marc A. Pelletier" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FBAA09B.2020908@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> <200311181344.51478.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:43:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > My latest attempt is: > > "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified expectation that the > recipients (however many) are willing to receive it." > The working defition of spam in the ASRG is stated in the technical considerations document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt): For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is sufficient. Your definition is basically another way to say "unsolicited". If I do not want it, its another way to say that it was unsolicited. That is the point that the charter of the group is addressing - consent based communications arises from the concept of solicited and unsolicited email, or consent and non-consent. The bulk aspect of email may or may not be relevant, depending whom you ask. The same technical considerations document states regarding bulk: 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. The "bulk" aspect of email is what causes problems to ISPs and other organization, while the unsolicited concept gives headaches to individual users. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 17:50:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22927 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEfg-00077i-NA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAIMo8Im027376 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEfg-00077T-Gb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:08 -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 RAA22907 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEfd-0001VD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEfd-0001VA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:50:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMEfa-00071c-JJ; Tue, 18 Nov 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 1AMEfO-000717-Hv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:50 -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 RAA22893 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMEfL-0001Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:48 -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 1AMEfL-0001TE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:47 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-869.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.139.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOK005U7KQ1PS@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:49:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam In-reply-to: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> To: "Marc A. Pelletier" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FBAA1E7.8080109@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311181705.03163.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 11:41, Jon Kyme wrote: >>It might also be instructive to check out the archives of this list. >>Here's a good one: >>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg07341.html >> >> >>Spam definitions? No thanks. We have a "consent-based communication" model. >>Spam is the other stuff :-) > > > Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome. The > message is clear, and I will act accordingly. > I did not think we became communist yet, at least I haven't noticed all the extra perks party members supposed to get In any case, the reason why we are trying to steer away from this, is because both inside and outside the group, definitions vary. Your original definition concentrated on the "unsolicited" aspect of spam, on the other hand the DMA's definition of spam is forged email. A consensus on what is spam exactly has not been reached by anyone inside or outside the group. Additionally, as I stated in my other message, your definition is basically "unsolicited" which looks at the email from the individual users' perspective. "Bulk" on the other hand, is what bothers most ISPs, not unsolicited. Both must be taken into the account, and your definition is basically half of the ASRG working definition. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 18 19:38:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27950 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMGMP-0004iu-MS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAJ0cLDZ018148 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMGMP-0004id-Hh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:21 -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 TAA27919 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMGMN-0003vr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMGMN-0003vo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMGM5-0004e2-9E; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMGLA-0004Pa-F2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:37:04 -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 TAA27880 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMGL8-0003u5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:37:02 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMGL7-0003tO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:37:01 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003111900362601600hlvbje>; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:36:26 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.100]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2204418685; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:41:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FBABB09.2030304@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements and what is spam References: <200311171858955.SM01928@viper1> <200311180024.06191.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <20031118082905.6157.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> <200311181344.51478.marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca> <3FBAA09B.2020908@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FBAA09B.2020908@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:36:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> My latest attempt is: >> >> "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified expectation >> that the recipients (however many) are willing to receive it." >> > [snip] > > > For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is > sufficient. > > > Your definition is basically another way to say "unsolicited". If I do > not want it, its another way to say that it was unsolicited. That is the > point that the charter of the group is addressing - consent based > communications arises from the concept of solicited and unsolicited > email, or consent and non-consent. > I think Marc's definition tries to be inclusive of both explicitly given consent, such as a confirmed mailing list subscription, and consent implicit in, for example, receiving an individually addressed email from someone previously unknown to you but containing content you wish to receive. Note that the latter is unsolicited but the intended recipient would be willing to receive it. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 19 00:08:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06695 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMKZv-0008Rt-ML for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAJ58ZMJ032471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMKZv-0008Rd-HK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:35 -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 AAA06623 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMKZt-0000CH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMKZs-0000CC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMKZN-0008L9-KS; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMKYj-0008Ap-GE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:21 -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 AAA06599 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMKYh-0000BI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:19 -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 1AMKYg-0000Ap-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:18 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-371-937.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.167.59]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOL00AFL279BH@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:06:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <3FBA9C80.20400@solidmatrix.com> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBAFA66.7030904@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FBA9C80.20400@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - New announce list created for 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: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:06:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > A new read-only low-traffic list has been created for ASRG > announcements. It is called: > > asrg-announce@ietf.org > > To subscribe to that list, please email asrg-announce-request@ietf.org > with the word "subscribe" in the subject line or visit > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg-announce. > > This list, asrg@ietf.org, will continue as an open discussion list for > the group. If you have any questions, please contact the chairs. > > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Co-Chair, ASRG > To clear up some confusion: we will post announcement messages to both lists. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 20 16:03:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26329 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMvwq-0002Il-63 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAKL2i0W008846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMvwq-0002Ib-27 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:44 -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 QAA26297 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMvwo-0002eY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMvwn-0002eU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMvwA-0002Eh-2k; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMvvi-0002EF-0j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:01:34 -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 QAA26202 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMvvg-0002bL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:01:32 -0500 Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com ([144.135.25.159]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMvvf-0002Yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:01:31 -0500 Received: from lerc-daemon.mta05ps.email.bigpond.com by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HOO00B494QTQH@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:54:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from email.bigpond.com ([172.26.103.16]) by mta05ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HOO002MD4QOIY@mta05ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org.lerc-daemon (ORCPT asrg@ietf.org); Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.115.152] by mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com (mshttpd) ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:54:24 +1100 From: "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <1e756e1e97f6.1e97f61e756e@email.bigpond.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Oct 29 2003) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Pew Report on Spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:54:24 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O For those who haven't seen this - Subject: New Pew Internet Report on Spam Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56 From: Amanda Lenhart To: h.lilly@gmx.net Spam is starting to hurt email and erode people's trust in the Internet world For the full report: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=102 WASHINGTON (October 22, 2003) -- The recent explosion of email spam is beginning to take its toll on the Internet world. A new nationwide survey shows that 25% of America's email users say they are using email less because of spam. Within that group, most say that spam has reduced their overall use of email in a big way. Further, more than half of email users say that spam has made them less trusting of email in general. One of their fears is that legitimate emails might be turned away by filters designed to stop spam. Another is that they'll simply miss incoming email from friends, family, or colleagues amid the clutter of spam in their inboxes. A new report entitled "Spam: Hurting email and degrading the Internet environment,"by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, includes scores of stories gathered in a Web-survey by the Washington-based Telecommunications Research & Action Center about how spam has affected people's experience with email and changed their views about the value of email. "People just love email, and it really bothers them that spam is ruining such a good thing," said Deborah Fallows, Senior Research Fellow at the Pew Internet & American Life Project and author of the report. "People resent spam's intrusions; they are angered by its deceptions; and they are offended by much of the truly disgusting content." Here are some other key figures from a national phone survey of 1,380 Internet users conducted by the Pew Internet Project in June. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus three points: * 75% of email users are bothered that they cant stop the flow of spam, no matter what they do * 70% of email users say spam has made being online unpleasant or annoying. * 55% of email users say they get so many unwanted email messages in their personal account that it's hard to get to the ones they want * 30% of email users are concerned that their filtering devices may block incoming email that is important to them. Despite their dismay, most Internet users keep the issue of spam in perspective. For them, spam takes its place next to life's other annoyances, like telemarketing calls. Further, many users believe they know how to behave in a spam-saturated environment. The most popular way of dealing with spam is to simply click "delete." More than 2/3 have made a more aggressive move, clicking to "remove me" from future mailings, although many voice concern that doing so only leads to more spam. And most email users are judicious about guarding their email addresses in hopes of avoiding spam. A minority employ their own filters, either in work or personal accounts. At the same time, there is evidence in the survey that enough Americans respond to offers in unsolicited email to sustain spam as a viable, lucrative endeavor. Some 7% of emailers--more than eight million people--report they have ordered a product or service that was offered in an unsolicited email. Fully a third of email users say they have clicked on a link in unsolicited commercial email to get more information. The report argues that Americans are somewhat fuzzy when it comes to defining spam, an issue of critical importance to legislators as they tackle anti-spam legislation in Congress. There is consensus that spam is "unsolicited commercial email from a sender you don't know." However, messages with religious, political, or charity fundraising content are spam to some users, but not others. And users have varying answers about how businesses should interpret their prior relationship with customers. There is not a clear consensus among users about the circumstances under which they are "known" by a seller or "have a relationship with" a firm. "The general findings are striking, but inside the data are even more disturbing details about the reactions women and parents have with pornographic spam," said Fallows. "Pornographers deserve a special place in hell as far as they are concerned." The Pew Internet & American Life Project is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to examine the social impact of the Internet. The Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) is a nonprofit organization that promotes the interests of residential telecommunications customers. Their stories cited in the report come from a compilation of more than 4,000 first-person narratives about spam that were solicited since September of 2002. As part of a campaign to fight unsolicited commercial email, TRAC invited Internet users to submit stories about their personal experiences with spam. Please feel free to forward this email alert to colleagues, friends, or family members who might be interested in it. If you have received this message from a subscriber, you can sign up to receive your own alerts at: http://www.pewinternet.org/signup.asp _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 20 16:17:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27272 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMwAn-0004cl-WD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAKLH9as017769 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMwAn-0004cW-RS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:09 -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 QAA27256 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMwAm-00037Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMwAl-00037V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMwAf-0004Yn-6c; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AMwAa-0004YU-KG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:56 -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 QAA27225 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AMwAY-00036u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:54 -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 1AMwAY-000365-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:54 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-379-812.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.197.224]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOO002MK5R39Y@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:16:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Pew Report on Spam (was Re: [Asrg] Pew Report on Spam) In-reply-to: <1e756e1e97f6.1e97f61e756e@email.bigpond.com> To: "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FBD2F20.90702@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <1e756e1e97f6.1e97f61e756e@email.bigpond.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, 20 Nov 2003 16:16:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] ipeter@bigpond.net.au wrote: > For those who haven't seen this - > > Subject: New Pew Internet Report on Spam > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:56 > From: Amanda Lenhart > To: h.lilly@gmx.net > > Spam is starting to hurt email and erode people's trust in the Internet world > > For the full report: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=102 > > WASHINGTON (October 22, 2003) -- The recent explosion of email spam is > beginning to take its toll on the Internet world. A new nationwide survey > shows that 25% of America's email users say they are using email less > because of spam. Within that group, most say that spam has reduced their > overall use of email in a big way. > > Further, more than half of email users say that spam has made them less > trusting of email in general. One of their fears is that legitimate emails > might be turned away by filters designed to stop spam. Another is that > they'll simply miss incoming email from friends, family, or colleagues amid > the clutter of spam in their inboxes. > > A new report entitled "Spam: Hurting email and degrading the Internet > environment,"by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, includes scores > of stories gathered in a Web-survey by the Washington-based > Telecommunications Research & Action Center about how spam has affected > people's experience with email and changed their views about the value of > email. > > "People just love email, and it really bothers them that spam is ruining > such a good thing," said Deborah Fallows, Senior Research Fellow at the Pew > Internet & American Life Project and author of the report. "People resent > spam's intrusions; they are angered by its deceptions; and they are > offended by much of the truly disgusting content." > > Here are some other key figures from a national phone survey of 1,380 > Internet users conducted by the Pew Internet Project in June. The survey > has a margin of error of plus or minus three points: > > * 75% of email users are bothered that they cant stop the flow of spam, > no matter what they do > * 70% of email users say spam has made being online unpleasant or > annoying. > * 55% of email users say they get so many unwanted email messages in > their personal account that it's hard to get to the ones they want > * 30% of email users are concerned that their filtering devices may > block incoming email that is important to them. > Despite their dismay, most Internet users keep the issue of spam in > perspective. For them, spam takes its place next to life's other > annoyances, like telemarketing calls. Further, many users believe they know > how to behave in a spam-saturated environment. The most popular way of > dealing with spam is to simply click "delete." More than 2/3 have made a > more aggressive move, clicking to "remove me" from future mailings, > although many voice concern that doing so only leads to more spam. > > And most email users are judicious about guarding their email addresses in > hopes of avoiding spam. A minority employ their own filters, either in > work or personal accounts. > > At the same time, there is evidence in the survey that enough Americans > respond to offers in unsolicited email to sustain spam as a viable, > lucrative endeavor. Some 7% of emailers--more than eight million > people--report they have ordered a product or service that was offered in > an unsolicited email. Fully a third of email users say they have clicked on > a link in unsolicited commercial email to get more information. > > The report argues that Americans are somewhat fuzzy when it comes to > defining spam, an issue of critical importance to legislators as they > tackle anti-spam legislation in Congress. There is consensus that spam is > "unsolicited commercial email from a sender you don't know." However, > messages with religious, political, or charity fundraising content are spam > to some users, but not others. And users have varying answers about how > businesses should interpret their prior relationship with customers. There > is not a clear consensus among users about the circumstances under which > they are "known" by a seller or "have a relationship with" a firm. > > "The general findings are striking, but inside the data are even more > disturbing details about the reactions women and parents have with > pornographic spam," said Fallows. "Pornographers deserve a special place in > hell as far as they are concerned." > > The Pew Internet & American Life Project is a non-profit, non-partisan > research organization funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to examine the > social impact of the Internet. > > The Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) is a nonprofit > organization that promotes the interests of residential telecommunications > customers. Their stories cited in the report come from a compilation of > more than 4,000 first-person narratives about spam that were solicited > since September of 2002. As part of a campaign to fight unsolicited > commercial email, TRAC invited Internet users to submit stories about their > personal experiences with spam. > > > Please feel free to forward this email alert to colleagues, friends, or > family members who might be interested in it. If you have received this > message from a subscriber, you can sign up to receive your own alerts at: > http://www.pewinternet.org/signup.asp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 21 10:42:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18426 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANDPr-0006KD-Sb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALFfp7m024307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANDPr-0006Jy-Mw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:51 -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 KAA18388 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANDPp-0003tC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANDPo-0003t6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANDP5-0006BE-Oi; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:41:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANDO6-00069X-C2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:40:02 -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 KAA18200 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:39:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANDO3-0003p7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:39:59 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANDO3-0003p4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:39:59 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hALFdwod014493 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:39:58 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131F8@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:39:57 -0800 Status: O So much for Yahoo being an aly in the figtht against spam. This morning I received a message from them which includes the following passages: "Over the years, we've sent emails to some registered Yahoo! members about Yahoo! products and services. We've also delivered promotional messages to Yahoo! members on behalf of our marketing partners. When you first registered with us and created your Yahoo! ID, our system presented a single "Yes" or "No" option for receiving all types of marketing communications. At some point you said "No," and after that we no longer sent any of these types of messages to you. In March 2002, we began rolling out an updated marketing communications system. Instead of just a single "Yes" or "No" choice, we created a new Marketing Preferences page where you decide: ... When this updated system was first announced in March 2002, we told you we'd begin sending you messages about Yahoo! products and services across all categories, even though you had said "No" to messages under the old single choice system. We also told you that you could still say "No" to these messages by visiting your Marketing Preferences. " In other words, we know that you opted NOT to receive marketting messages from us, we collected the data from you under that express understanding, we now believe that we have the right to unilaterally change the terms of that contract and in fact send spam to you even though you explicitly told us NOT to send it. I take the checkoff box to mean that my email address is not going to be abused if I select the 'don't spam me' option. The fact these people have taken from March 2002 until now to send this second note shows that they know themselves that their actions are dishonest. In this particular case I have no idea at all what the account in question would be. I tend to use yahoo accounts disposably. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 11:38:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20521 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEIO-0001au-Av for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALGcCCE006122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEIO-0001af-4Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:12 -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 LAA20506 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEIN-0004eA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEIM-0004e7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEIE-0001Qp-3s; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEHH-0001Cg-Mp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:37:03 -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 LAA20457 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEHG-0004dQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:37:02 -0500 Received: from mxout6.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.33.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEHG-0004dI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:37:02 -0500 Received: from mailhost1.u.washington.edu (mailhost1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.141]) by mxout6.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hALGb0R5022803 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:37:00 -0800 Received: from UW1233PC01 (B-216-186-74-42.bothell.washington.edu [216.186.74.42]) by mailhost1.u.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with SMTP id hALGb0nO004890 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:37:00 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" To: "ASRG" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131F8@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:37:00 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hi! Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey about Spam. The survey is at- https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 [If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] Thanks. Best, Sandeep Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep Read my publications at- http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 12:00:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22294 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEds-0003iR-Lj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALH0O84014279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEdr-0003iE-GX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:23 -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 MAA22281 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEdq-0005FQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEdp-0005FN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEdX-0003dg-L0; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEdD-0003cy-Td for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:59:44 -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 LAA22250 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEdC-0005Ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:59:42 -0500 Received: from [63.175.177.49] (helo=deepskytech.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEdC-0005Ek-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:59:42 -0500 Received: from 63.175.177.201 (63.175.177.201) by deepskytech.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.1); Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:58:54 +0000 From: "Steven G. Willis" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey. To: sandeep@u.washington.edu, ASRG X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.0.2 (Blindsider) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:59:42 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/21/2003 at 08:37 it was written: >Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey >about Spam. The survey is at- > >https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 > >[If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] Questions 7 amd 8 on this survey seem to not have all of the possible answers... Looks specifically for an answer of "Definitely Not Spam" on these two questions and you will see that they are not available properly. It would probably be best to toss out any data you have in this survey until you correct this problem. Once corrected, please repost to the list and we can all then take part. Cheers! ================================================================ Steven G. Willis sgwillis@deepskytech.com 772.794.9494 Deep Sky Technologies, Inc. http://www.deepskytech.com/ http://www.badchickens.com/ http://www.store-secure.com/ AIM-iChat: dstisgwillis ================================================================ A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? ================================================================ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 12:04:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22527 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEhr-0004le-0Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALH4UW2018317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEhq-0004lM-Qu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:30 -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 MAA22480 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEhp-0005Kr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEhp-0005KI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEhN-0004YL-CH; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANEhB-0004UX-4s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:03:49 -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 MAA22433 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEh9-0005Jc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:03:47 -0500 Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu ([140.142.32.135]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANEh8-0005JF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:03:47 -0500 Received: from mailhost1.u.washington.edu (mailhost1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.141]) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with ESMTP id hALH3Z2l012192 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:36 -0800 Received: from UW1233PC01 (B-216-186-74-42.bothell.washington.edu [216.186.74.42]) by mailhost1.u.washington.edu (8.12.10+UW03.09/8.12.10+UW03.09) with SMTP id hALH3ZnO009081 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:35 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" To: "ASRG" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Help with academic research survey. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:03:35 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Friends, The astute members of this list immediately pointed out a bug in this survey. I take full ownership of these errors. I have gone ahead and deleted the results from the survey to avoid using contaminated data. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey about Spam. The survey is at- https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 [If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] Others have asked me if I will share the results. I plan to write a paper that will use the results from this. I will be happy to share the paper with the group. Thanks. Best, Sandeep Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep Read my publications at- http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 12:52:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24464 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANFRx-00089U-3m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALHq94d031330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANFRw-00089F-Ty for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:08 -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 MAA24455 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANFRv-000694-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANFRu-000691-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANFRq-00086O-Mt; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANFRV-00085N-FU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:51:43 -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 MAA24421 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANFRT-00068E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:51:39 -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 1ANFRT-00067S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:51:39 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-388-924.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.233.84]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOP006S3QTVZ6@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:49:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] In-reply-to: To: sandeep@u.washington.edu Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FBE500B.7070505@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 21 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod] Sandeep Krishnamurthy wrote: > Hi! > > Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey > about Spam. The survey is at- > > https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 > > [If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] > > Thanks. > > Best, > Sandeep > > Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep > Read my publications at- > http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 21 13:57:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26716 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGT0-000465-Cp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALIvIAo015743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGT0-00045q-82 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:18 -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 NAA26697 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGSx-00072v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGSx-00072s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGSi-000401-Ru; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGRs-0003xo-Gn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:56:08 -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 NAA26632 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGRq-00071N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:56:06 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGRp-00071K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:56:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 15820 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 13:56:05 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 13:56:05 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 23908 invoked by uid 101); 21 Nov 2003 13:56:00 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] Message-ID: <20031121185600.GA20306@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FBE500B.7070505@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FBE500B.7070505@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:56:00 -0500 Status: O > Sandeep Krishnamurthy wrote: > >Hi! > > > >Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey > >about Spam. The survey is at- > > > >https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 Hmm. I started on it, but too many questions include "you do not remember". It doesn't really matter what I remember, it matters what I actually did.. So I personally would mark all those as inconclusive, but since I bet that's not what you want, I just backed out. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 14:10:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27196 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGfP-00055z-DT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALJA7Dv019581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGfP-00055k-9d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:07 -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 OAA27173 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGfM-0007BS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGfM-0007BP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGfJ-00050n-UI; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGem-00050H-NI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:09:28 -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 OAA27158 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGek-0007Aw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:09:26 -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 1ANGej-0007Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:09:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-388-924.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.233.84]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOP009RUUD1S5@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:05:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131F8@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBE61F5.50601@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131F8@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, 21 Nov 2003 14:05:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O This brings to light an interesting question. Lets assume that you had a business transaction with someone but had explicitly denied consent for spam. And now the company goes ahead and changes your consent decision like Yahoo did below. Does having a business relationship with Yahoo implies implicit consent? Yakov Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > So much for Yahoo being an aly in the figtht against spam. This morning I > received a message from them which includes the following passages: > > > "Over the years, we've sent emails to some registered Yahoo! members about > Yahoo! products and services. We've also delivered promotional messages to > Yahoo! members on behalf of our marketing partners. When you first > registered with us and created your Yahoo! ID, our system presented a single > "Yes" or "No" option for receiving all types of marketing communications. At > some point you said "No," and after that we no longer sent any of these > types of messages to you. > > In March 2002, we began rolling out an updated marketing communications > system. Instead of just a single "Yes" or "No" choice, we created a new > Marketing Preferences page where you decide: > > ... > > When this updated system was first announced in March 2002, we told you we'd > begin sending you messages about Yahoo! products and services across all > categories, even though you had said "No" to messages under the old single > choice system. We also told you that you could still say "No" to these > messages by visiting your Marketing Preferences. " > > > In other words, we know that you opted NOT to receive marketting messages > from us, we collected the data from you under that express understanding, we > now believe that we have the right to unilaterally change the terms of that > contract and in fact send spam to you even though you explicitly told us NOT > to send it. > > I take the checkoff box to mean that my email address is not going to be > abused if I select the 'don't spam me' option. The fact these people have > taken from March 2002 until now to send this second note shows that they > know themselves that their actions are dishonest. > > In this particular case I have no idea at all what the account in question > would be. I tend to use yahoo accounts disposably. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 14:24:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27645 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGsu-0006H1-TF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALJO4ae024109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGsu-0006Gm-Om for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:04 -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 OAA27610 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGss-0007MA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGsr-0007M7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGsr-0006EU-0V; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANGs7-00066s-Rj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:23:15 -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 OAA27562 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANGs5-0007Kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:23:13 -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 1ANGs4-0007Jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:23:12 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-388-924.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.233.84]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOP00A6BV5E34@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:22:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBE65F4.4070907@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:22:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O See the following article: http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5110622.html ---------------------- "Congress has reached an agreement on antispam legislation and could vote on it as early as Friday afternoon, a move that would end more than six years of failed attempts to enact a federal law restricting unsolicited commercial e-mail." "The broad outline of the legislation, however, shows that it is a modest compromise and not as far-reaching as some antispam advocates had urged. It establishes a "do not spam" registry to be run by the Federal Trade Commission, makes it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to send fraudulent spam, and imposes an "opt out" standard instead of a more stringent "opt in" requirement. Unsolicited bulk e-mail from nonprofit groups, politicians, and charities would not be regulated. Still unclear is whether the bill would pre-empt more restrictive state laws such as one enacted in September by California. That law establishes an opt-in standard and is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1." ---------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 14:47:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28480 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHFJ-0007gD-DJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALJlDdU029515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHFJ-0007fy-81 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:13 -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 OAA28460 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHFG-0007eX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHFG-0007eU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHF8-0007XY-48; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHEL-0007Wj-23 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:46:13 -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 OAA28441 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHEI-0007cP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:46:10 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHEH-0007cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:46:09 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hALJk75T001758; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:46:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:45:57 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FB@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:45:55 -0800 Status: O Yakov, I do not believe it is possible for the other party to change my consent decision. What has changed here is that Yahoo has decided not to respect my decision. Incidentally, Yahoo's behavior is almost certainly in contravention of the EU privacy directive. The commission are looking for someone to slap, lets hope that they choose Yahoo. And yes, the EU has no difficulty enforcing it decisions abroad. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:05 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam > > > This brings to light an interesting question. Lets assume > that you had a > business transaction with someone but had explicitly denied > consent for > spam. And now the company goes ahead and changes your consent decision > like Yahoo did below. Does having a business relationship with Yahoo > implies implicit consent? > > Yakov > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > So much for Yahoo being an aly in the figtht against spam. > This morning I > > received a message from them which includes the following passages: > > > > > > "Over the years, we've sent emails to some registered > Yahoo! members about > > Yahoo! products and services. We've also delivered > promotional messages to > > Yahoo! members on behalf of our marketing partners. When you first > > registered with us and created your Yahoo! ID, our system > presented a single > > "Yes" or "No" option for receiving all types of marketing > communications. At > > some point you said "No," and after that we no longer sent > any of these > > types of messages to you. > > > > In March 2002, we began rolling out an updated marketing > communications > > system. Instead of just a single "Yes" or "No" choice, we > created a new > > Marketing Preferences page where you decide: > > > > ... > > > > When this updated system was first announced in March 2002, > we told you we'd > > begin sending you messages about Yahoo! products and > services across all > > categories, even though you had said "No" to messages under > the old single > > choice system. We also told you that you could still say > "No" to these > > messages by visiting your Marketing Preferences. " > > > > > > In other words, we know that you opted NOT to receive > marketting messages > > from us, we collected the data from you under that express > understanding, we > > now believe that we have the right to unilaterally change > the terms of that > > contract and in fact send spam to you even though you > explicitly told us NOT > > to send it. > > > > I take the checkoff box to mean that my email address is > not going to be > > abused if I select the 'don't spam me' option. The fact > these people have > > taken from March 2002 until now to send this second note > shows that they > > know themselves that their actions are dishonest. > > > > In this particular case I have no idea at all what the > account in question > > would be. I tend to use yahoo accounts disposably. > > > > 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 Nov 21 14:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28650 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHM4-0008GM-M6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALJsC2R031756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHM4-0008G7-Gs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:12 -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 OAA28609 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHM1-0007hD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHM1-0007hA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHLt-0008As-5m; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANHLh-0008AS-IP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:49 -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 OAA28599 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHLe-0007gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANHLe-0007gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:53:46 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hALJri5T004600; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:53:37 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill 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, 21 Nov 2003 11:53:36 -0800 Status: O Some comments: 1) We should push to make sure that the do not spam registry is maintained using the one-way digest technique. [My original publication on this is now eight years old and we can be as sure as is possible it is not encumbered]. 2) I am not particularly concerned about pre-empting state statutes that the states are failing to enforce. I would much rather see a weak federal statute being enforced than a strong state statute that is ignored. 3) I am still an advocate of having the Postal Inspectorate, the wing of the justice dept that investigates mail frauds take responsibility for investigating spam frauds. The FTC has been doing some useful work here, but it is a civil agency and cannot apply for criminal sanctions. The mail inspectorate can and does. 4) Legislative action is not a substitute for fixing the email protocols. We need to consider how we can change the email protocols to make enforcement of anti-spam laws more effective. 5) The do not spam registry is unlikely to reduce the effectiveness and will significantly reduce the first ammendment uncertainty in connection with the act. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:22 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal > anti-spam bill > > > See the following article: > > http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5110622.html > > ---------------------- > "Congress has reached an agreement on antispam legislation and could > vote on it as early as Friday afternoon, a move that would > end more than > six years of failed attempts to enact a federal law restricting > unsolicited commercial e-mail." > > "The broad outline of the legislation, however, shows that it is a > modest compromise and not as far-reaching as some antispam > advocates had > urged. It establishes a "do not spam" registry to be run by > the Federal > Trade Commission, makes it a crime punishable by up to five years in > prison to send fraudulent spam, and imposes an "opt out" standard > instead of a more stringent "opt in" requirement. Unsolicited bulk > e-mail from nonprofit groups, politicians, and charities would not be > regulated. > > Still unclear is whether the bill would pre-empt more > restrictive state > laws such as one enacted in September by California. That law > establishes an opt-in standard and is scheduled to take > effect on Jan. 1." > ---------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 21 17:05:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06231 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJOv-0000AD-6W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALM5HoE000623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJOv-00009y-0X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:17 -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 RAA06204 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJOs-00028r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJOs-00028o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJNi-0008GR-5c; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJNV-0008F2-64 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:03:51 -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 RAA06037 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJNS-00024Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:03:46 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJNS-00023X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:03:46 -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 1ANJCX-0002md-PO for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:52:30 -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 1ANJFP-0001gW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:55:27 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:06:55 +0100." <20031121210655.GQ18395@Space.Net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:55:27 -0500 Status: O Markus Stumpf wrote: > We receive enough complaints about mailinglists of customers that > are strictly double opt-in (and where I have logs that they have confirmed > per eMail) from people that "cannot remember having subscribed". ... > Not having enough brain or not being able to track which lists someone > has subscribed to is not a valid base for marking a message spam, IMHO. Going back to the protocols (rather than social issues) this problem could be addressed by some kind of token exchange. The difficulty lies in desiging a system which is accountable to, and believable by both parties. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 17:06:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06270 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJPJ-0000Ci-6H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALM5f8q000776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJPJ-0000CR-0H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:41 -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 RAA06228 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJPG-00029T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJPG-00029Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJOi-0008Tr-Gw; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJNw-0008HO-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:16 -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 RAA06076 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJNq-00025c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:10 -0500 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJNp-000258-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:09 -0500 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 3242806; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:04:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0500 Status: O At 11:53 AM -0800 11/21/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >5) The do not spam registry is unlikely to reduce the effectiveness and will >significantly reduce the first ammendment uncertainty in connection with the >act. I'm looking forward to seeing how I'm supposed to add 40,000 non-existent somewhere.com addresses to a do-not-email registry. -- 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 Nov 21 17:14:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07263 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJXR-00015f-T1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALME5Gp004185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJXR-00015Q-Eu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:05 -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 RAA07163 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:13:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJXO-0002Sp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJXN-0002Sk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJWP-0000j0-69; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJVQ-0000go-L5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:00 -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 RAA06986 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJVO-0002PJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:11:58 -0500 Received: from krusty-motorsports.com ([192.94.170.8] ident=exim) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJVN-0002P2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:11:57 -0500 Received: from [24.194.112.77] (helo=skipper.averillpark.net) by krusty-motorsports.com with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.22) id 1ANKRI-00004r-US for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:11:48 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by skipper.averillpark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1ANJSr-00007z-25 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:09:21 -0500 From: Richard Welty To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: INLINE References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Organization: Averill Park Networking X-Mailer: Mahogany 0.66.0 'Clio', compiled for Linux 2.4.18-14 i686 Subject: [Asrg] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re[2]:=20[Asrg]=206.=20Proposals=20-=20Legal=20-=20US=20Con?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?gress=20=20to=20vote=20on=20federal=20=09=20anti-spam=20bil?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?l?= Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:09:20 -0500 (EST) Status: O On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:53 AM -0800 11/21/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >5) The do not spam registry is unlikely to reduce the effectiveness and will > >significantly reduce the first ammendment uncertainty in connection with the > >act. > I'm looking forward to seeing how I'm supposed to add 40,000 > non-existent somewhere.com addresses to a do-not-email registry. last i heard, domain wide opt-out was part of the do-not-spam list, so *@somewhere.com should do nicely for most purposes. i sure hope domain wide opt-out is still in there, it's the only thing that can even remotely make the bill tolerable. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 17:14:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07278 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJXS-00015x-Qd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALME639004203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJXS-00015i-Fz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:06 -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 RAA07167 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJXO-0002Sy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJXN-0002Sl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJWP-0000jH-Up; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANJVe-0000gy-4S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:14 -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 RAA07000 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJVb-0002Pi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:11 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANJVb-0002Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 27371 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 17:12:07 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 17:12:07 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 20254 invoked by uid 101); 21 Nov 2003 17:12:07 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] Message-ID: <20031121221207.GH4018@iridium.mv.net> References: <20031121210655.GQ18395@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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:12:07 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:55:27PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > We receive enough complaints about mailinglists of customers that > > are strictly double opt-in (and where I have logs that they have confirmed > > per eMail) from people that "cannot remember having subscribed". > ... > > Not having enough brain or not being able to track which lists someone > > has subscribed to is not a valid base for marking a message spam, IMHO. > > Going back to the protocols (rather than social issues) this problem > could be addressed by some kind of token exchange. The difficulty > lies in desiging a system which is accountable to, and believable by > both parties. I agree. The problem may be that people forget, but the solution isn't to rant against those people. It's to realize that that is a fact of life, and make it so people don't have to use their memories; but to rely on tools, records, and methods that (hopefully) come into play without always having to specifically be aware of them. How's that for a content-free observation :-) mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 18:25:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11897 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKeP-0006YB-62 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALNPLI4025175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKeO-0006Xy-T9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:20 -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 SAA11890 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKeL-0003vz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKeL-0003vw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKe5-0006U6-Nw; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKdj-0006Th-Bc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:24:39 -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 SAA11879 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKdg-0003vP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:24:36 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKdf-0003vB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:24:35 -0500 Received: from somewhere.comcast.net (c-24-7-4-0.client.comcast.net[24.7.4.0]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003112123240501400ot9f0e> (Authid: s.schear); Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:24:06 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: Declan McCullagh From: Steve Schear Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031121161312.A519@baltwash.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:21:58 -0800 Status: O At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote: >A copy of the bill is here: >http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, for the purpose of commercial speech. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 18:35:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12203 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKms-00071G-AM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hALNY6pY026976 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKms-000711-4e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:06 -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 SAA12161 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKmp-00043C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKmo-000439-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKmn-0006wJ-B7; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANKmG-0006vx-3v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:33:28 -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 SAA12126 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:33:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKmC-00042c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:33:24 -0500 Received: from mta.prod1.dngr.net ([63.241.65.15] helo=mfe2.prod.danger.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANKmC-000424-00; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:33:24 -0500 Received: from [10.12.5.251] (HELO localhost.localdomain) by mfe2.prod.danger.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP id 44723490; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:32:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp] Reply-To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." X-Mailer: Danger Service Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.net> From: "Anne P. Mitchell" Message-Id: <1069457571.2FE5BCEC@r5.dngr.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: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:32:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O There's actually a fair amount of proconsumer stuff in the new version...am in touch with DC..will post more when I can. Anne P. Mitchell, Eaq., CEO/President, ISIPP Sent from my Sidekick. On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 3:26pm, Steve Schear wrote: > At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> A copy of the bill is here: >> http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf > > I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of > anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, > for the purpose of commercial speech. > > steve _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Sent from my Sidekick. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 19:21:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13471 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANLWT-0001kf-Hb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAM0LDd7006727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANLWT-0001kQ-D3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:13 -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 TAA13448 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANLWR-0004bu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANLWR-0004br-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANLWJ-0001hv-Ao; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANLW1-0001hC-Pf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:20:45 -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 TAA13419 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANLW0-0004bG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:20:44 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANLVz-0004bD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:20:43 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAM0Kgod023443; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:20:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:20:42 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113200@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Steve Schear'" Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] 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, 21 Nov 2003 16:20:34 -0800 Status: O We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. I propose as a minimum: 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the service. 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the list 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, minimally the date of subscription. In addition we might add: 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces I disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 ("FTC Do Not Spam List") to create a unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol attacks. To add an individual email address "alice@example.com" to the list we calculate HMAC ("alice@example.com") to create the key. A domain may be represented by the string "example.com". To determine whether the address "bob@example.com" is on the list it is necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary search, or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not necessary to distribute the list sorted. There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of such a list for address validation. This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in cersorware. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 20:06:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14577 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANME6-0004JG-7a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAM16IPA016560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANME6-0004J1-1g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:18 -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 UAA14568 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANME4-00057d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANME3-00057a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANMDq-0004Eq-C1; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANMDB-0004Bh-JN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:05:21 -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 UAA14535 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANMD9-00056e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:05:19 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANMD9-00056b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:05:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 25315 invoked by uid 1013); 22 Nov 2003 01:05:10 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] Message-ID: <20031122010510.GB18395@Space.Net> References: <20031121210655.GQ18395@Space.Net> <20031121221207.GH4018@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031121221207.GH4018@iridium.mv.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: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:05:10 +0100 Status: O On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 05:12:07PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > I agree. The problem may be that people forget, but the solution > isn't to rant against those people. It's to realize that that is a > fact of life, and make it so people don't have to use their memories; > but to rely on tools, records, and methods that (hopefully) come > into play without always having to specifically be aware of them. This methods exists in the very medium they used to subscribe. It's called email and is delivered in form of a notification message, containing a confirmation of the subscription, a description of the list and detailed help/unsubscribe information. The problem is they throw it away and I don't think any other "tool" or "record" will be of more success as they will throw it away, also. If they sign a contract to get some yellow press magazines each month they keep the contract, because it costs money. If they subscribe to a mailing list they don't, as it doesn't cost them money (usually). If they no longer want to be part of the mailing list they cry "spam spam", because that's currently more conveniant than to read the header, find the List-Unsubscribe: , and unsubscribe themself. Spam is trendy and /the/ bad guy, so serious mailing list managers (humans) are willing to spend a lot of time and effort to not to be called spammers and that is what those people currently abuse. I've seen spam complaints from people that had received the weekly newsletter for two years after double opt-in and then cried "spam" and "I never subscribed to this". \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 Nov 21 22:12:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17384 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANOBz-0003Q5-Kc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAM3CFY9013142 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANOBz-0003Ps-EB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:15 -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 WAA17369 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANOBw-0006Ta-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANOBw-0006TX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANOBm-0003NE-1A; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANOAp-0003M3-3X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:11:03 -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 WAA17356 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANOAl-0006TE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:11:00 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANOAl-0006TB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 18735 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 22:10:59 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 22:10:59 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 26265 invoked by uid 101); 21 Nov 2003 22:10:57 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Markus Stumpf Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] Message-ID: <20031122031057.GB10634@iridium.mv.net> References: <20031121210655.GQ18395@Space.Net> <20031121221207.GH4018@iridium.mv.net> <20031122010510.GB18395@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031122010510.GB18395@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, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:57 -0500 Status: O On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:05:10AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 05:12:07PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > I agree. The problem may be that people forget, but the solution > > isn't to rant against those people. It's to realize that that is a > > fact of life, and make it so people don't have to use their memories; > > but to rely on tools, records, and methods that (hopefully) come > > into play without always having to specifically be aware of them. > > This methods exists in the very medium they used to subscribe. > It's called email and is delivered in form of a notification > message, containing a confirmation of the subscription, a description > of the list and detailed help/unsubscribe information. The problem is > they throw it away and I don't think any other "tool" or "record" will > be of more success as they will throw it away, also. Indeed, but that's all part of relying on each participant to do the right thing over time. That's not the kind of thing I meant. That's more of a description of the problem than the solution. When millions of people have to learn even a little bit, or remember a little bit, or rely on their own records, etc., in order to interoperate correctly, you'll get millions of failures and problems. Thus the part of the sentence about "... that come into play without people having to be aware of them." You want reality, fact, verifiability, and traceability: this can't be up to every individual's record-keeping ability or their ability to do the right thing in any way. > If they sign a contract to get some yellow press magazines each month they > keep the contract, because it costs money. Believe me, people (on both sides) manage to forget agreements where money is involved, too. > If they subscribe to a mailing > list they don't, as it doesn't cost them money (usually). If they no longer > want to be part of the mailing list they cry "spam spam", because that's > currently more conveniant than to read the header, find the > List-Unsubscribe: , > > and unsubscribe themself. Yep. Agreed. Blaming them doesn't solve anything, though. I mean yes, they are wrong. They'll be wrong the next time, too. Or somebody else will. > > Spam is trendy and /the/ bad guy, so serious mailing list managers > (humans) are willing to spend a lot of time and effort to not to be > called spammers and that is what those people currently abuse. I've seen > spam complaints from people that had received the weekly newsletter for > two years after double opt-in and then cried "spam" and "I never subscribed > to this". Agreed. I've even seen it from people like you and me, people who should know better. I'm confident enough of my own ability to make mistakes that I'm sure I could do it, too. Relying on every person in the world (even the smart ones) to behave correctly is futile. Maybe especially the smart ones: heaven help you said person is an expert who couldn't possibly be wrong. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 21 23:27:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18980 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANPMV-00076t-Ct for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAM4RBXh027325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANPMT-00076T-8c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:09 -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 XAA18953 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANPMQ-0007EU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANPMQ-0007ER-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:27:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANPLR-0006ya-Uu; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANPKt-0006yA-Cx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:25:31 -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 XAA18817 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANPKp-0007AX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:25:27 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANPKo-0007AU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:25:26 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAM4PQSh008023; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:25:26 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113202@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Steve Schear'" Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] 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, 21 Nov 2003 20:25:24 -0800 Status: O Yeah, Yeah dictionary attacks... The key is that the search space is actually thinly populated enough to make dictionary attack hard. Most usernames are 6 characters or more, many include numbers, that is about 26^6 worth of search space per domain. Of course this is not evenly populated, but the odd thing is that the usernames turn out to be more random than the average password. This is because random is not unguessable. Many usernames are surnames, many are compounds of initial plus surname, only a relative handfull are commonly used names and those tend to get grabbed fast. so you have a pretty big search space, millions of possibilities and that for each one of fifty million domains. The same does not hold for do-not-call lists. The problem there is that something like 80% of the numbers available at active exchanges are already allocated. Most of the stock of unused numbers are on exchanges that have not yet been allocated. Since something like 30% of subscribers sign up for do not call the result is that dictonary attacks are easy. Also we add out of service addresses that get spammed anyway to the list. So the list is not an accurate way to find out if an address is in service or not. Alan knows quite a few addresses that get spammed that are invalid. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:21 PM > To: 'Steve Schear' > Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on > anti -spam bill [sp] > > > We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam > list and the > requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. > > I propose as a minimum: > > 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the > service. > 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given > email is on the > list > 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a > mailing list. > 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, > minimally the date of subscription. > > In addition we might add: > > 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. > 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests > > > These requirements can be met using completely generic and to > my knowledge > unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent > encumberabces I > disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea > of using a one > way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in > 1995, I also > implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely > novel, hash > databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be > similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. > > My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as > HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 ("FTC Do Not Spam List") > to create a > unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security > consideration > here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to > chosen protocol > attacks. > > To add an individual email address "alice@example.com" to the list we > calculate HMAC ("alice@example.com") to create the key. A > domain may be > represented by the string "example.com". > > To determine whether the address "bob@example.com" is on the > list it is > necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. > > [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] > > > The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list > according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of > binary search, > or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using > ranged search > using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not > necessary to distribute the list sorted. > > There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the > usefulness of > such a list for address validation. > > This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in > cersorware. > > 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 Sat Nov 22 05:24:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08195 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANUw2-0000rY-P4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMAOEOl003312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANUw2-0000rL-ID for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:14 -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 FAA08156 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANUvz-00033w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANUvy-00033t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANUvp-0000oh-QJ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANUus-0000oC-HB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:23:02 -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 FAA08099 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANUup-00032b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:22:59 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANUuo-00031n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:22:58 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 49A313801C; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:22:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4B438010 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:22:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id KAA21805; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:22:28 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031122102228.GA21600@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Spam survey Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 10:22:28 +0000 Status: O I started taking this survey, but stopped after a few questions. One reason being the point about whether I *remember* providing information, which is the same issue as another poster mentioned. The second problem involved questions like this one: "... from a company you do not recognize. You have had a business transaction with them in the past." This is somewhat confusing. If I remembered that had a business transaction with them in the past then I would by definition recognize the company, which kind-of invalidates the question, unless the implicit assumption is that I have had a transaction with them, but do not remember doing so, which again brings up the issue of whether the definition of spam depends on the quality of the memory of the recipient. I do not think so, and I consider questions like this to make the survey somewhat pointless. -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-540-7400 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@f-prot.com fax: +354-540-7401 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 05:38:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08398 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANV9U-0001k0-CR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMAc87C006686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANV9T-0001jl-Oe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:07 -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 FAA08389 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:37:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANV9Q-0003Bp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANV9P-0003Bm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANV9N-0001eo-Jj; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANV97-0001Zw-Qy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:37:45 -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 FAA08381 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANV94-0003Bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:37:42 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANV93-0003BZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:37:41 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ANV94-0007D9-12; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:37:42 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FBE61F5.50601@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:37:42 +0000 Status: O > This brings to light an interesting question. Lets assume that you had a > business transaction with someone but had explicitly denied consent for > spam. And now the company goes ahead and changes your consent decision > like Yahoo did below. Does having a business relationship with Yahoo > implies implicit consent? > > The sender CAN NOT change MY consent decision. They can choose to ignore it, as here. Surely implicit consent can only be assumed in the absence of any explicit consent expression. There's also the question of what matters such implied consent might apply to. For me, consent couldn't be implied in these circumstances. But of course this is just spam definition in other terms and probably off topic. PHB clearly isn't consenting to this communication from Yahoo. That's what counts. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 05:46:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08518 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANVHB-0002Bi-9A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMAk5AW008404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANVHB-0002BT-2s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:05 -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 FAA08515 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANVH7-0003FC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANVH7-0003F9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANVH8-00029E-Eh; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANVH1-00028u-VN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:45:56 -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 FAA08512 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANVGy-0003F6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:45:52 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANVGx-0003F3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:45:51 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ANVGz-00083z-23; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:45:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FB@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo decides to send spam To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:45:53 +0000 Status: O > Incidentally, Yahoo's behavior is almost certainly in contravention > of the EU privacy directive. The commission are looking for someone to > slap, > lets hope that they choose Yahoo. >From my reading of the UK regulations which enact the EU directive here (and the official guidance recently issued http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk somewhere - they've just changed the site layout) I'd guess this would be a breach. Yahoo Ltd is a UK company and I'd hope that our information commisioner would have a go at them if a UK recipient complains. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 06:37:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09375 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANW4d-0004J0-9B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMBbAV7016544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANW4c-0004IV-8Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:10 -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 GAA09352 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANW4Y-0003iD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANW4X-0003i9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANW4T-0004Dj-41; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANW3Y-000489-Ax for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:36:04 -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 GAA09338 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANW3U-0003ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:36:00 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANW3T-0003hq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:35:59 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ANW3V-0005Lg-9X; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:36:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031122010510.GB18395@Space.Net> Subject: Re: 0. General - Spam survey [was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.] To: "Markus Stumpf" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:36:01 +0000 Status: O > > This methods exists in the very medium they used to subscribe. > It's called email and is delivered in form of a notification > message, containing a confirmation of the subscription, a description > of the list and detailed help/unsubscribe information. The problem is > they throw it away and I don't think any other "tool" or "record" will > be of more success as they will throw it away, also. > Think harder. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 06:58:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09695 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANWOr-0005Gt-3J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMBw5bC020257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANWOq-0005Ge-Tq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:04 -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 GAA09690 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANWOm-0003tx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANWOm-0003tu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANWOn-0005ER-03; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANWO5-0005Dy-Eb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:57:17 -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 GAA09675 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANWO1-0003tY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:57:13 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANWO0-0003tU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:57:12 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ANWO1-0007jS-MF; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:57:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031122102228.GA21600@f-prot.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Spam survey To: "Fridrik Skulason" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:57:13 +0000 Status: O > I started taking this survey, but stopped after a few questions. One > reason being > the point about whether I *remember* providing information, which is the > same issue > as another poster mentioned. The second problem involved questions like > this one: > > > "... from a company you do not recognize. You have had a business > transaction > with them in the past." > > This is somewhat confusing. If I remembered that had a business > transaction > with them in the past then I would by definition recognize the company, > which > kind-of invalidates the question, unless the implicit assumption is that > I have > had a transaction with them, but do not remember doing so, which again > brings > up the issue of whether the definition of spam depends on the quality of > the > memory of the recipient. I do not think so, and I consider questions like > this > to make the survey somewhat pointless. > Surely what a *recipient* considers *spam* can only be determined by the recipient. This can depend on the memory of the recipient. Why is this a problem for us here? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 13:55:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18473 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANcuc-000811-V0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMItIsp030808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANcuc-00080p-Pt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:18 -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 NAA18466 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANcua-00011n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANcua-00011k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANcuM-0007yH-OW; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANctd-0007xf-9b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:54:17 -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 NAA18446 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANcta-00011I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:54:14 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANcta-00010x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:54:14 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.153] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A07C3E0084; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:52:44 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3FBE65F4.4070907@solidmatrix.com> thread-index: AcOwZQnaz2UPaUqYSxSwybkvA/+qzQAwiFYQ Message-Id: <200311221352821.SM01920@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (4063364) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (4063364) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 13:53:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Funny.... This goes back to some of my first comments on this list.... IMHO laws to stop/reduce/lessen SPAM without *Accountablity* and the removal of *forged* email headers is like trying to use a paper towel as an umbrella.... It may for for a short time but in the end is *DOOMED* I would urge anyone who speaks to or communicates with the legal side to get them to see that spam is mostly a "Side effect" of an email system that allows email headers to be fake. Can anyone tell me what good a US law will be in stoping a SPAM sender who is say in sweeden that sends fake headers to a mail server in korea and then to a mail server in say russia and then to the usa? If the email can not be traced back to the sender ..... And crosses 2 or more international borders in the process then who do you go after? At what cost? In which contry? Based on who's legal system? This is one of the reasons why I originaly mentioned a model somewhat like international mail. Unless we have some form of UN/Global legaly sactioned body the spamers will just keep sending us more junk but now with new disclaimers about how they are complying with the law based on ...... To quote an old Issac Asimov book title: "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." Or another way: "Against SPAM, the congressmen themselves contend in vain." > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:22 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on > federal anti-spam bill > > See the following article: > > http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5110622.html > > ---------------------- > "Congress has reached an agreement on antispam legislation > and could vote on it as early as Friday afternoon, a move > that would end more than six years of failed attempts to > enact a federal law restricting unsolicited commercial e-mail." > > "The broad outline of the legislation, however, shows that it > is a modest compromise and not as far-reaching as some > antispam advocates had urged. It establishes a "do not spam" > registry to be run by the Federal Trade Commission, makes it > a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to send > fraudulent spam, and imposes an "opt out" standard instead of > a more stringent "opt in" requirement. Unsolicited bulk > e-mail from nonprofit groups, politicians, and charities > would not be regulated. > > Still unclear is whether the bill would pre-empt more > restrictive state laws such as one enacted in September by > California. That law establishes an opt-in standard and is > scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1." > ---------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 22 14:23:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18979 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdLX-0001Gq-9t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMJN7hv004878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdLX-0001Gb-5O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:07 -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 OAA18965 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdLU-0001Hl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdLU-0001Hi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdLQ-0001EQ-WB; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdL9-0001Dz-Cd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:22:43 -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 OAA18962 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:22:30 -0500 (EST) From: todd.shepel@telus.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdL6-0001He-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:22:40 -0500 Received: from outbound05.telus.net ([199.185.220.224] helo=priv-edtnes43.telusplanet.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdL6-0001HW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:22:40 -0500 Received: from localhost ([199.185.220.240]) by priv-edtnes43.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20031122192210.AFW6807.priv-edtnes43.telusplanet.net@localhost>; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:22:10 -0700 Received: from 161.184.231.144 ( [161.184.231.144]) as user todd.shepel@telus.net@192.168.200.1 by webmail.telus.net with HTTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:22:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1069528929.3fbfb761d465e@webmail.telus.net> To: sandeep@u.washington.edu Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1-cvs X-Originating-IP: 161.184.231.144 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, 22 Nov 2003 12:22:09 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O Hi Sandeep, I truly appreciate your personal effort within the ASWG and the ASWG at large. Sorry about all the verbage in advance, hopefully some will find my contemplations worthwhile reading; <- this is my theme. I have been lurking on the IETF ASWG list for a while now. I completed your survey @ https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi? owner=sandeep&id=66 . Just some thoughts for future survey enhancements and future discussion on the ASWG board. WRT your survey, Concent is ALL important; no "if", "and", ior "but". My opinion cannot be swayed on this matter. However, with concent, is a difficult expectation that the content of [0|1|2|#|only the next #|some|most|all|general 3rd party|this particular 3rd party|did I miss any? (literally|figurately)|time dependant combinations of fore-mentioned] future communications will be well received. ????? This, IMHO, is one of three fatal flaws in the whole SMTP communications model, that most seem to have to live with after volenteering an email address; quite a lot for the simple "submit" function to assume. More importantly, it is this communications model several recognize erroneous and therefore exploitable. The unfortunate problem becomes one of, if a recepient receives content, at any time, which is not as expected, the original mis-understood concentual expectation, finally becomes recognizably compromised BY THE RECIPIENT ONLY. With compromised trust in communication, the "unsubscribe" function becomes equally questionable. Both a sender and recepient's wants & needs change with time. It is not reasonable to expect sender & recepients wants and needs to always necessary stay well alined; if those wants and needs were ever aligned? To make things worse, automated senders have no reason to care if alignment is not achieved with this mailout, for this particular [solicited|unsolicited] address; because "they" take a stake in the feedom the possession of an email address MIGHT afford, hoping the next message will entise, the next time, ad infinium. There is nothing to lose, because the system is fundamently broken in "their" favor. 2nd fatal flaw. Isn't SMTP a form of TCP/IP? It seems to me, the problem has become one of SMTP exhibiting better characteristics of UDP. Going back to the stone-age, when someone says "UHGG! Enuf!" or just walks away, true communications cease thereafter. TCP/IP SMTP acknowledges at a system level, "ACK, ya I got the message". Is this consent enough that this communication and future communications are acceptable? Challenge Response, fundamentally has the right idea. Problems are: the sender really has NO motivation to stop communicating to a known entity, only to find better methods by which to continue to appeal/harrass until the objective of the communications are achieved, all the while leaving the burden of continuing to walk away with the recipient, with very limited legal recourse. In my mind, it would be great, if I could just respond to a message I well received with, "thanx! That stuff you said about Blah was GREAT! Tell me more.", This sets an expectation that future communications are potentially equally well received. For lack of full message response, or communications to the effect of "UHGG! Enuf", I hold, further messages need necessary cease there after, for this particular content, IP, sender, sender's company or ????. Very very thick trouble. Too sadly, some senders receiving feedback/or no feedback to the effect of [thanx|enuf|subscribe|unsubscribe|blah|*], use this as an opportunity to pro-actively re-tune the next message ad-infinium; welcome to inbox clutter. Thanx, but no thanx. Please don't try to read my mind for me about what I need to see in my inbox next; If I let you know, I will let you know. 3rd fault or 12 ish. World Economics, Politics, & Law in the New Geo-Spanning Cyber-Fontier. Not enough cowboys, virtual bullets, virtual jurisdiction, super fast & smart horses, too many "public?" posts to nail the next message to, too many fly-by-night cyber-saloons and peasant-educated shoddy-built-pig- barns to hide masked villians in/behind. This needs to change. I wish I had a simple answer for this one. sigh :( Though their are a number of able-bodied groups finally meeting in their town halls and schools with pitch forks and stones in arms, crafting new devices. This is a very important start! :) Todd. Quoting Sandeep Krishnamurthy : > Hi! > > Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey > about Spam. The survey is at- > > https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 > > [If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] > > Thanks. > > Best, > Sandeep > > Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep > Read my publications at- > http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 22 14:34:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19229 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdWR-0001jP-4I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMJYNEA006649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdWQ-0001jA-Vu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:23 -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 OAA19192 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdWO-0001MS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdWN-0001ME-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:34:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdV7-0001ap-B1; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdUo-0001aV-Rs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:32:42 -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 OAA19140 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdUm-0001MA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:32:40 -0500 Received: from ns34.webmasters.com ([207.142.134.41]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdUl-0001M4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:32:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 13606 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2003 19:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO A3) (dave@flowerdog.com@66.229.76.120) by ns34.webmasters.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2003 19:32:05 -0000 Message-ID: <005901c3b12f$517383d0$0300a8c0@A3> From: "Dave Atherton" To: References: <20031122102228.GA21600@f-prot.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Spam survey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fridrik Skulason" > "... from a company you do not recognize. You have had a business transaction > with them in the past." > > This is somewhat confusing. If I remembered that had a business transaction > with them in the past then I would by definition recognize the company, which > kind-of invalidates the question, unless the implicit assumption is that I have > had a transaction with them, but do not remember doing so, which again brings > up the issue of whether the definition of spam depends on the quality of the > memory of the recipient. That's a good point but the company could have changed its name or been involved in a merger. You might have done business with AT&T Broadband but not recognize Comcast; so, Comcast knows you (and probably "acquired" your consent) but you do not know Comcast. -Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 14:57:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19603 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdsU-0002Xw-U0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMJvAZj009779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdsU-0002Xc-91 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:10 -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 OAA19590 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdsR-0001Y5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdsR-0001Y2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdsK-0002V7-Re; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANdsG-0002Ur-FM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:56:56 -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 OAA19584 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:56:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdsD-0001Xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:56:53 -0500 Received: from krusty-motorsports.com ([192.94.170.8] ident=exim) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANdsD-0001Xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:56:53 -0500 Received: from [24.194.112.77] (helo=skipper.averillpark.net) by krusty-motorsports.com with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.22) id 1ANeoG-0002IJ-03 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:56:52 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by skipper.averillpark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1ANdrI-0001UJ-U4 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:55:56 -0500 From: Richard Welty Subject: Re[2]: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Spam survey To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: INLINE References: <20031122102228.GA21600@f-prot.com> <005901c3b12f$517383d0$0300a8c0@A3> In-Reply-To: <005901c3b12f$517383d0$0300a8c0@A3> Reply-To: Organization: Averill Park Networking X-Mailer: Mahogany 0.66.0 'Clio', compiled for Linux 2.4.18-14 i686 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 14:55:56 -0500 (EST) Status: O On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:07 -0800 Dave Atherton wrote: > That's a good point but the company could have changed its name or been > involved in a merger. You might have done business with AT&T Broadband but > not recognize Comcast; so, Comcast knows you (and probably "acquired" your > consent) but you do not know Comcast. or to give an example that is very current: when i purchased my Handspring Visor, i decided to let them send me their newsletter. this is a case where i clearly consented to receive their marketing info. Hanspring recently merged with Palm. fortunately, they did a good job of letting folks know, so i was not suprised when i started getting the Palm equivalent of the old Handspring newsletter, but if i'd been asleep at the switch, or if they'd done a lesser job of notification, i might think think otherwise. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 15:28:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21229 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeMS-0004Q6-7N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMKS861016986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeMS-0004Pt-1O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:08 -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 PAA21225 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANeMQ-0001tA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANeMQ-0001t7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeML-0004Ne-M1; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeMH-0004NN-HR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:27:57 -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 PAA21218 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANeMG-0001sy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:27:56 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANeMF-0001sv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:27:55 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ANeMF-0001nj-NQ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:27:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311221352821.SM01920@viper1> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:27:55 +0000 Status: O > > Can anyone tell me what good a US law will be in stoping a SPAM sender > who > is say in sweeden that sends fake headers to a mail server in korea and > then > to a mail server in say russia and then to the usa? > If the email can not be traced back to the sender ..... And crosses 2 or > more international borders in the process then who do you go after? At > what > cost? In which contry? Based on who's legal system? > I don't know about you Danny, but most of the spam I receive advertises products or services from the USA. Most of it *seems* to originate in the USA. I can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to track down and prosecute the criminals (as they'll be) in these cases. Rokso ( http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/ ) seem to do fairly well. > To quote an old Issac Asimov book title: "Against stupidity, the gods > themselves contend in vain." That's Schiller, I think. Asimov was quoting. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 15:52:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21554 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeje-0005VI-Ji for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMKq6Sv021150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANeje-0005V3-D5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:06 -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 PAA21547 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANejc-00025V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANejc-00025S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANejY-0005RJ-Tj; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANejP-0005R5-2I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:51:51 -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 PAA21541 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANejN-00025I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:51:49 -0500 Received: from snoopy.oit.edu ([140.211.135.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANejM-00024z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:51:49 -0500 Received: from fireserve.net (dh0020.moore-s.fireserve.net [207.109.249.149]) by snoopy.oit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/OIT-4.0) with ESMTP id hAMKpESe005078 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:51:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3FBFCC36.7050107@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, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Spam survey References: <20031122102228.GA21600@f-prot.com> <005901c3b12f$517383d0$0300a8c0@A3> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:51:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Richard Welty wrote: >On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:07 -0800 Dave Atherton wrote: > > >>That's a good point but the company could have changed its name or been >>involved in a merger. You might have done business with AT&T Broadband but >>not recognize Comcast; so, Comcast knows you (and probably "acquired" your >>consent) but you do not know Comcast. >> >> > >or to give an example that is very current: > >when i purchased my Handspring Visor, i decided to let them send me their >newsletter. this is a case where i clearly consented to receive their marketing >info. > >Hanspring recently merged with Palm. fortunately, they did a good job of letting >folks know, so i was not suprised when i started getting the Palm equivalent >of the old Handspring newsletter, but if i'd been asleep at the switch, or if they'd >done a lesser job of notification, i might think think otherwise. > >richard > > If it was token based, and address specific, they would have to ask you to get in your 'gate' :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 18:54:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26303 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhaC-00051C-1G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMNsVec019284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhaB-00050x-Rz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:31 -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 SAA26292 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANha8-0003yN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANha8-0003yJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhZh-0004x0-Ki; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhZ7-0004su-1N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:53:25 -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 SAA26265 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhZ3-0003xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:53:21 -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 1ANhZ3-0003xV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:53:21 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOS00GWV2BZ9B@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:52:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBFF6CF.7010509@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - ASRG website down until Sunday night Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 18:52:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O The website for the ASRG is currently down and will remain so until Sunday night. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 18:59:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26427 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhea-0005QO-3y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAMNx48x020846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANheZ-0005Q9-T1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:03 -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 SAA26404 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANheW-00041P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANheW-00041M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANheX-0005Ly-Ge; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhdr-0005LT-DH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:19 -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 SAA26382 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhdo-00040c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:16 -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 1ANhdn-00040B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:15 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOS0048A2K4UZ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:57:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 0. General - Research Survey (was Re: [Asrg] Help with academic research survey.) In-reply-to: <1069528929.3fbfb761d465e@webmail.telus.net> To: todd.shepel@telus.net Cc: sandeep@u.washington.edu, ASRG Message-id: <3FBFF7F4.2030104@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <1069528929.3fbfb761d465e@webmail.telus.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: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:57:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] todd.shepel@telus.net wrote: > Hi Sandeep, > > I truly appreciate your personal effort within the ASWG and the ASWG at large. > > Sorry about all the verbage in advance, hopefully some will find my > contemplations worthwhile reading; <- this is my theme. > > I have been lurking on the IETF ASWG list for a while now. I completed your > survey @ https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi? > owner=sandeep&id=66 > . Just some thoughts for future survey enhancements and future discussion on > the ASWG board. > > WRT your survey, Concent is ALL important; no "if", "and", ior "but". My > opinion cannot be swayed on this matter. However, with concent, is a > difficult expectation that the content of [0|1|2|#|only the next > #|some|most|all|general 3rd party|this particular 3rd party|did I miss any? > (literally|figurately)|time dependant combinations of fore-mentioned] future > communications will be well received. > > ????? > > This, IMHO, is one of three fatal flaws in the whole SMTP communications > model, that most seem to have to live with after volenteering an email > address; quite a lot for the simple "submit" function to assume. More > importantly, it is this communications model several recognize erroneous and > therefore exploitable. > > The unfortunate problem becomes one of, if a recepient receives content, at > any time, which is not as expected, the original mis-understood concentual > expectation, finally becomes recognizably compromised BY THE RECIPIENT ONLY. > With compromised trust in communication, the "unsubscribe" function becomes > equally questionable. > > Both a sender and recepient's wants & needs change with time. It is not > reasonable to expect sender & recepients wants and needs to always necessary > stay well alined; if those wants and needs were ever aligned? To make things > worse, automated senders have no reason to care if alignment is not achieved > with this mailout, for this particular [solicited|unsolicited] address; > because "they" take a stake in the feedom the possession of an email address > MIGHT afford, hoping the next message will entise, the next time, ad > infinium. There is nothing to lose, because the system is fundamently broken > in "their" favor. > > 2nd fatal flaw. Isn't SMTP a form of TCP/IP? It seems to me, the problem has > become one of SMTP exhibiting better characteristics of UDP. Going back to > the stone-age, when someone says "UHGG! Enuf!" or just walks away, true > communications cease thereafter. TCP/IP SMTP acknowledges at a system > level, "ACK, ya I got the message". Is this consent enough that this > communication and future communications are acceptable? Challenge Response, > fundamentally has the right idea. Problems are: the sender really has NO > motivation to stop communicating to a known entity, only to find better > methods by which to continue to appeal/harrass until the objective of the > communications are achieved, all the while leaving the burden of continuing to > walk away with the recipient, with very limited legal recourse. > > In my mind, it would be great, if I could just respond to a message I well > received with, "thanx! That stuff you said about Blah was GREAT! Tell me > more.", This sets an expectation that future communications are potentially > equally well received. > > For lack of full message response, or communications to the effect of "UHGG! > Enuf", I hold, further messages need necessary cease there after, for this > particular content, IP, sender, sender's company or ????. Very very thick > trouble. Too sadly, some senders receiving feedback/or no feedback to the > effect of [thanx|enuf|subscribe|unsubscribe|blah|*], use this as an > opportunity to pro-actively re-tune the next message ad-infinium; welcome to > inbox clutter. Thanx, but no thanx. > > Please don't try to read my mind for me about what I need to see in my inbox > next; If I let you know, I will let you know. > > 3rd fault or 12 ish. World Economics, Politics, & Law in the New Geo-Spanning > Cyber-Fontier. Not enough cowboys, virtual bullets, virtual jurisdiction, > super fast & smart horses, too many "public?" posts to nail the next message > to, too many fly-by-night cyber-saloons and peasant-educated shoddy-built-pig- > barns to hide masked villians in/behind. This needs to change. I wish I had > a simple answer for this one. sigh :( > > Though their are a number of able-bodied groups finally meeting in their town > halls and schools with pitch forks and stones in arms, crafting new devices. > This is a very important start! :) > > Todd. > > > Quoting Sandeep Krishnamurthy : > > >>Hi! >> >>Please take a few minutes to participate in an academic research survey >>about Spam. The survey is at- >> >>https://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/webq/survey.cgi?owner=sandeep&id=66 >> >>[If that URL does not work, please try this one- http://tinyurl.com/vzw4] >> >>Thanks. >> >>Best, >>Sandeep >> >>Home Page: http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep >>Read my publications at- >>http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/publist3.htm >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing 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 Nov 22 19:00:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26485 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhfb-0005d2-N7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN007Lv021630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhfa-0005c4-Nx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:06 -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 SAA26452 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhfX-00042j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhfX-00042g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhfX-0005Yy-GW; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhf1-0005SD-7m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:31 -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 SAA26425 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhex-000428-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:28 -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 1ANhex-000415-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:59:27 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOS00APC2M44G@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:58:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress passes anti-spam bill (was Re: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]) In-reply-to: <1069457571.2FE5BCEC@r5.dngr.org> To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FBFF83B.4090907@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.net> <1069457571.2FE5BCEC@r5.dngr.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: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:58:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] We would like to hear on the anonymity aspect some more and how this bill will affect it. Anne P. Mitchell wrote: > > There's actually a fair amount of pro consumer stuff in the new > version...am in touch with DC..will post more when I can. > > Anne P. Mitchell, Eaq., > CEO/President, ISIPP > > Sent from my Sidekick. > > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 3:26pm, Steve Schear wrote: > >> At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >>> A copy of the bill is here: >>> http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf >> >> >> I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of >> anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email >> accounts, for the purpose of commercial speech. >> >> steve _______________________________________________ >> Asrg mailing list >> Asrg@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > Sent from my Sidekick. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 22 19:03:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26571 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhiR-0005mF-1R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:03:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN033SW022201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:03:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhiQ-0005m0-TP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:03:02 -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 TAA26523 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhiN-00045L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhiN-00045I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhiO-0005iK-Pj; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:03:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhi0-0005hu-GZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:36 -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 TAA26517 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhhx-000451-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:33 -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 1ANhhw-00044q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:02:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOS0040P2R9B8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:02:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Legal - US Spam Law - Anonimity (was Re: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]) In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.net> To: Steve Schear Cc: Declan McCullagh , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FBFF8F5.9080703@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031121151344.05e99e80@mail.comcast.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: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:01:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] I took a quick look at it, and although I am not a lawyer, it seems to affect only commercial emails and the anti-forging provisions do not seem to apply to a single email going to a single person, only to emails with 5 or more recipients or 2 domains. Yakov Steve Schear wrote: > At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> A copy of the bill is here: >> http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf > > > I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of > anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, > for the purpose of commercial speech. > > steve > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 22 19:11:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26719 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhqF-0006TZ-1U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN0B7Ud024887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhqE-0006TK-Tp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:06 -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 TAA26689 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhqB-0004AF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhqB-0004AC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhqA-0006PO-Qz; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANhpS-0006OM-Ds for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:19 -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 TAA26661 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANhpD-00049V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:03 -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 1ANhpD-00049O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:03 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOS00G8U33T7L@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:09:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FBFFABB.3040203@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 19:09:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O From the following article: http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16400308 ------------------------- "One organization working on sender-authentication mechanism is a commercial alliance comprising the biggest consumer e-mail providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, America Online and Earthlink." "Under the proposal, ISPs and any other organization with their own domain name system (DNS) would use a private key in their mail servers to place an encrypted code in the header of each piece of outgoing mail. When the mail arrived at its destination, the receiving mail server would get the sender's public key from its DNS server to decrypt the header, thus verifying the message's origin. If the message is spam, or even a legitimate marketing message the receiver doesn't want, then email from that DNS can be blacklisted, or automatically blocked. "Once you have identity, then you can establish reputation and trust," Libbey said. "Those are really important concepts in e-mail." Yahoo has done some proof-of-concept testing of the idea internally, but the technology is still at the early stages of development and no timetable for general release has been set." ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 19:54:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27266 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANiVt-00087j-Es for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN0s9h1031221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANiVt-00087U-AU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:09 -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 TAA27261 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANiVr-0004UV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANiVr-0004US-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANiVl-00083s-HH; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANiUy-000825-Sj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:12 -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 TAA27242 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANiUw-0004U9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:10 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANiUw-0004U6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:10 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip175-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.175]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BFF493735A for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:23 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill Message-ID: <20031123005323.GA2323@m433> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011131FC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:53:23 -0500 Status: O I'm a Canadian, so I write from a foreign perspective. This law will probably affect me just like S1618 did. On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:53:36AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > 3) I am still an advocate of having the Postal Inspectorate, the wing > of the justice dept that investigates mail frauds take responsibility > for investigating spam frauds. The FTC has been doing some useful > work here, but it is a civil agency and cannot apply for criminal > sanctions. The mail inspectorate can and does. One worrisome aspect of this approach is that it begins the "slippery slope" towards "email == electronic version of postal mail". This would eventually result in spamfilters being declared illegal, just like any other interference with postal mail. > 4) Legislative action is not a substitute for fixing the email > protocols. We need to consider how we can change the email protocols > to make enforcement of anti-spam laws more effective. The root cause is even deeper. There are millions of compromised, aka "0wn3d", home machines out there, under the control of organized crime, being rented to anyone who'll pay for them. The current payers are spammers. They could just as easily include Al Qaeda. Consider these machines just like guns stolen by criminals, to allow them to commit crimes without being traced. As long as home machines have proxies and/or keyloggers, any authentication process can be subverted. Securing these machines will cut off the majority of current spam. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 22 22:21:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29387 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANkoQ-00050h-3i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN3LQCm019256 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANkoP-00050V-Tr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:25 -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 WAA29358 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANkoM-0005eQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANkoM-0005eN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANko2-0004xH-1d; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANknB-0004wQ-Lg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:20:09 -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 WAA29321 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:19:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANkn8-0005dR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:20:06 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANkn7-0005dK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:20:06 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003112303193601500pn5dne>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 03:19:36 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.103]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D450B18685 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:25:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC02750.2020100@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI References: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:19:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > From the following article: > > http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16400308 > > ------------------------- > "One organization working on sender-authentication mechanism is a > commercial alliance comprising the biggest consumer e-mail providers: > Microsoft, Yahoo, America Online and Earthlink." > > "Under the proposal, ISPs and any other organization with their own > domain name system (DNS) would use a private key in their mail servers > to place an encrypted code in the header of each piece of outgoing mail. > When the mail arrived at its destination, the receiving mail server > would get the sender's public key from its DNS server to decrypt the > header, thus verifying the message's origin. > > If the message is spam, or even a legitimate marketing message the > receiver doesn't want, then email from that DNS can be blacklisted, or > automatically blocked. "Once you have identity, then you can establish > reputation and trust," Libbey said. "Those are really important concepts > in e-mail." > > Yahoo has done some proof-of-concept testing of the idea internally, but > the technology is still at the early stages of development and no > timetable for general release has been set." > ------------------------- The quoted description sounds like an end-to-end implementation of a designated outgoing MTA protocol. This actually sounds better, on first impressions, than the current LMAP ideas, for three big reasons. First, this would be easier for senders to implement, because it doesn't require listing every MTA in DNS and it keeps configuration of a new MTA confined to that machine (all that has to be done is loading the private key). Second, it would require much less change to DNS, because only a single new record would be needed for each domain, rather than one for each server sending for that domain. Third, it would eliminate the issues of forwarding (.forward, aliases), because it checks the message originator in all circumstances. Indeed, it could allow for more trustworthy forwarding if the intermediate MTA were also checked. Now, my concerns: why have they not published a technical proposal for this yet? If there's anyone from the members of this alliance on this list, could they please step forward? Much more would be achieved by doing this publicly, and we've seen time and again that the IETF process works pretty damn well at working out problems before they become standards. Also, the comment about organizations with their own DNS doesn't sit well with me. From the rest of the description, it should be fine for anyone with their own domain name and mail server, not their own DNS server as the quote seems to imply. Finally, the reporter's remark about blacklisting based on this is senseless, because new domains are easy to obtain. This has already been stated multiple times. From a different part of the article: "The ASRG is considering three major proposals, Reverse MX, Sender Permitted From and Designated Sender Protocol, John R. Levine, co-chair of the organization said. "They're bascially all variations on the same theme, which is the attempt to identify mail that's not coming from where it should," Levine said." Perhaps Alan DeKok would be more qualified to comment on this, but this statement is not really accurate in light of the work on a combined LMAP draft. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 00:16:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01185 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANmbS-0000qh-JY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAN5GAOl003259 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANmbS-0000qU-FR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:10 -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 AAA01181 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANmbQ-0006c5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANmbP-0006c2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANmbI-0000o3-OX; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:16:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANmb0-0000nc-32 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:42 -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 AAA01178 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANmax-0006bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:39 -0500 Received: from host30-88.discord.birch.net ([65.16.30.88] helo=mailserver) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANmax-0006bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:39 -0500 Received: from [65.16.30.94] by mailserver (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.4.5)); Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:15:33 -0600 Message-ID: <034301c3b180$d1885950$6800a8c0@EIDSON1> Reply-To: "Rick" From: "Rick" To: Organization: Black Cricket 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Nov 2003 23:15:30 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O What about an ISP adding a server? Alowing it to cover any domain hosted on that server. Rick Eidson Black Cricket Technology, LLC > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > To: "'Steve Schear'" > Cc: ; > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:20 PM > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on > anti-spam bill [sp] > > > > We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the > > requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. > > > > I propose as a minimum: > > > > 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the > > service. > > 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the > > list > > 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. > > 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, > > minimally the date of subscription. > > > > In addition we might add: > > > > 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. > > 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests > > > > > > These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge > > unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces > I > > disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one > > way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also > > implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash > > databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be > > similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. > > > > My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as > > HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 ("FTC Do Not Spam List") to create a > > unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration > > here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol > > attacks. > > > > To add an individual email address "alice@example.com" to the list we > > calculate HMAC ("alice@example.com") to create the key. A domain may be > > represented by the string "example.com". > > > > To determine whether the address "bob@example.com" is on the list it is > > necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. > > > > [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] > > > > > > The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list > > according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary > search, > > or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search > > using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not > > necessary to distribute the list sorted. > > > > There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of > > such a list for address validation. > > > > This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in > > cersorware. > > > > 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 Sun Nov 23 11:20:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24295 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANwyA-0001xr-Ug for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hANGKIIx007545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANwyA-0001xc-Hy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:18 -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 LAA24290 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANwy9-0004b6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANwy9-0004b3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANwxw-0001vA-3g; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANwxR-0001uD-Qk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:19:33 -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 LAA24282 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANwxQ-0004aK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:19:32 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANwxQ-0004aF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:19:32 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hANGJVMa005822; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:19:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:19:31 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113206@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Philip Miller'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:19:30 -0800 Status: O > Much more would be achieved by doing this > publicly, and we've seen time and again that the IETF process > works pretty > damn well at working out problems before they become standards. That is far from the belief amongst commercial participants. The IETF actually has a lousy record of producing standards. Most of the 'IETF' standards were actually defined before the IETF was established. The only successful standards since, HTTP, LDAP, X.509 were successful independently of the IETF. The IETF also has a history of back room deals and magic circles which if like me you have experienced them leave a very bad taste. I think we need to work out a way to avoid a standards war here. But people have to understand that there is no way the industry is going to wait for a typical IETF ten year project that drifts aimlessly while people discuss metaphysical principals. Given that the IAB does not want the group to move into the IETF to work on LMAP and the next IETF is in Seoul (guaranteed negligible turnout) I do not see how it is likely that we can get anything going in IETF process in an acceptable timeframe. What we need to do is to hold a technical summit once the industry proposal is in a state where they are ready to publish it. I think that everyone is very clear that we should go forward with the best technical contributions from all sources. > Finally, the reporter's remark about blacklisting based on this is > senseless, because new domains are easy to obtain. This has > already been > stated multiple times. As with LMAP any scheme that depends on domain authentication alone has this weakness - see the analysis paper I sent out last week. I think that you will start to see effective blacklisting of un-authenticated domains. Over a short period of time people will crank up the spam-filter scoring penalty for an unauthenticated domain. If you are not authenticated you will find that little of your mail gets through. It is a positive feedback situation. Eventually a tipping point is reached where authentication becomes in effect mandatory. What you are pointing to is that authentication without some form of accreditation has limited value. The issue we do not know is what level of accreditation is going to be required. Fortunately this can safely be left to end users evaluations. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 11:35:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24547 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANxCZ-0002Nr-IA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hANGZBZJ009161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANxCZ-0002Ng-Cs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:11 -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 LAA24541 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:34:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANxCY-0004px-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANxCY-0004pu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANxCQ-0002Jq-JO; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANxBR-0002Hp-5S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:34:01 -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 LAA24522 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANxBQ-0004ol-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:34:00 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANxBP-0004oh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:33:59 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hANGXxMa009766; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:33:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:33:59 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113207@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Walter Dnes'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:33:58 -0800 Status: O > One worrisome aspect of this approach is that it begins the > "slippery slope" towards "email == electronic version of postal mail". > This would eventually result in spamfilters being declared > illegal, just > like any other interference with postal mail. I do not see the logic there. The closest analogy would be junk telephone call rejection schemes. These are completely legal for common carriers to offer to their customers (VeriSign has offered one in the past). I think that if we got into a situation where we had spam sufficiently under control that the sheer bulk was not a major problem we might eventually get to the point where there was some rule that ISPs had to allow the recipient to make all decisions as to whether email was accepted or rejected. I think we are a long way from that point. > > 4) Legislative action is not a substitute for fixing the email > > protocols. We need to consider how we can change the email protocols > > to make enforcement of anti-spam laws more effective. > > The root cause is even deeper. There are millions of > compromised, aka > "0wn3d", home machines out there, under the control of > organized crime, > being rented to anyone who'll pay for them. The current payers are > spammers. They could just as easily include Al Qaeda. Consider these > machines just like guns stolen by criminals, to allow them to commit > crimes without being traced. As long as home machines have proxies > and/or keyloggers, any authentication process can be subverted. > Securing these machines will cut off the majority of current spam. I would like to open up a dialogue with ISPs generally on the sort of measures that should be in place by default in home firewall systems included in cable modems. The point is that a real firewall is not just protection against fire spreading to my house, it stops my house setting fire to others. I see no legitimate reason for a home machine connected via broadband to originate a million SYN packets per second directed at the same IP address and port. I see no legitimate reason for a home machine to send more than ten thousand emails per hour. I am not just concerned about spam. When a DDoS hits the DNS roots it is hitting my machines. OK a cable modem may be subject to compromise, you may even want to allow the end user to configure certain options. But a situation where the attacker has to compromise BOTH the computer and the firewall is a massive improvement on where we are today. As I wrote in another piece recently, in the house of the future we will have twenty or more Internet capable devices in the house. I do not want to spend sleepless nights worrying whether hackers have owned MrCoffee and are using it to send spam. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 13:08:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25815 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANyeX-0005gx-D4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hANI89hw021875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANyeX-0005gk-5S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:09 -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 NAA25811 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANyeV-0005iL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANyeV-0005iI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANyeP-0005eY-LA; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ANydr-0005Ww-9o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:07:27 -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 NAA25792 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:07:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANydp-0005hZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:07:25 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ANydo-0005hP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:07:25 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hANIDUf23250; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:13:30 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <4186984106.20031123100649@brandenburg.com> To: Philip Miller CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI In-Reply-To: <3FC02750.2020100@zemos.net> References: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.com> <3FC02750.2020100@zemos.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:06:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O PM> impressions, than the current LMAP ideas, for three big reasons. First, this PM> would be easier for senders to implement, because it doesn't require listing PM> every MTA in DNS and it keeps configuration of a new MTA confined to that PM> machine (all that has to be done is loading the private key). in fact, it does not specify that it must be the domain of the MTA. Perhaps it is ok to have the domain of the author (From/Sender). This would be an enormous improvement over the typical proposals that requiring pre-registering a From domain with an MTA domain. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 17:27:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02235 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO2hI-0005yq-E3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hANMRG8T022982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO2hI-0005yb-8Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:16 -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 RAA02227 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO2hF-0000UD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO2hF-0000UA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO2h2-0005wD-Bx; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:27:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO2gO-0005vt-0l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:26:20 -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 RAA02205 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO2gL-0000TT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:26:17 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO2gL-0000TC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:26:17 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003112322254701400ov05de>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:25:47 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.103]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395BB18685 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:31:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC133F2.6020609@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - "The 10 Biggest Spam Myths" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Nov 2003 17:25:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O From the headings in the article: 1. There are only 200-300 hardcore spammers worldwide. They account for the overwhelming majority of junk e-mail. 2. Most spam comes from outside the U.S. 3. Spam legislation can end the problem. 4. The definition of spam is... 5. Legitimate marketers don't spam. 6. Opt-in is a sufficient spam deterrent. 7. Never opt out. 8. Microsoft is committed to helping end the spam epidemic. 9. A do-not-e-mail database will stop you from getting spam. 10. Spam can take down the whole Internet. These are things we need to start studying. I'm sure each of us holds their own beliefs on each of these points, but we need general studies for all of them. I remember some study a while ago about opt-out, but I don't remember seeing any results from that published. Does someone have those messages bookmarked, or have the studies not been completed yet? -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 20:39:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06970 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO5hK-0004ya-AO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO1dUSB019124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO5hK-0004yN-5J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:30 -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 UAA06959 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO5hH-0002Wz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO5hH-0002Ws-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO5gr-0004ua-BO; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO5fs-0004tP-Vv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:38:00 -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 UAA06933 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO5fq-0002Wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:58 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO5fq-0002WX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:58 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip193-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.193]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6383536A21 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:13 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI Message-ID: <20031124013713.GA3751@m433> References: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.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: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:13 -0500 Status: O On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 07:09:31PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16400308 > "Under the proposal, ISPs and any other organization with their > own domain name system (DNS) would use a private key in their mail > servers to place an encrypted code in the header of each piece > of outgoing mail. When the mail arrived at its destination, the > receiving mail server would get the sender's public key from its > DNS server to decrypt the header, thus verifying the message's origin. Why do they need an encrypted header ? Wouldn't a list of valid sending domains or IP addresses be sufficient ? Another worry is compromised home machines. A trojan can call the Windows API and run the dialup-and-send-email processes. For all intents and purposes, the end-user might be sitting at the keyboard. There is no for the ISP way to tell. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 21:28:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08126 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO6SM-0006cD-5m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO2S66p025422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO6SM-0006bx-1j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:06 -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 VAA08121 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO6SJ-00035v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO6SJ-00035s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO6SH-0006Zm-4q; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO6RM-0006ZS-0N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:27:04 -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 VAA08118 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:26:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO6RJ-00035Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:27:01 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO6RI-00035Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:27:00 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.153] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id AC1BA540020; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:25:31 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: thread-index: AcOxNxy9gbO1SkMtSJW6e9Qx/15NNAA+BpKQ Message-Id: <200311232125412.SM01920@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (173277216) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (173277216) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Nov 2003 21:25:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 3:28 PM > To: denny@figuerres.com > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to > vote on federal anti-spam bill > > > > > Can anyone tell me what good a US law will be in stoping a > SPAM sender > > who is say in sweeden that sends fake headers to a mail server in > > korea and then to a mail server in say russia and then to the usa? > > If the email can not be traced back to the sender ..... And > crosses 2 > > or more international borders in the process then who do > you go after? > > At what cost? In which contry? Based on who's legal system? > > > > I don't know about you Danny, but most of the spam I receive Denny -- with an 'e' please ;-) > advertises products or services from the USA. Most of it > *seems* to originate in the USA. I can't believe that it's > beyond the wit of man to track down and prosecute the > criminals (as they'll be) in these cases. Rokso ( > http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/ ) seem to do fairly well. > I'm sure they can be found for the most part.... But if you want to for example make them pay damages or take them to court and so on you have to be able to prove you got the right person Or company.... Ok so maby more is from the US than from abroad... That's not the point in my statement. Lets change the example: You have a SPAM with email headers that point to ISP "X" IP 1.2.3.4 but it also has headers showing say 3 other IP's / domains with some of them showing forged domain names in conflict with the IP's And the from xxxx@isp.com does not match any of the headers. And the Opt Out line uses a closed / fake email and or web site. And all the other crud they do.... So unless you have a *MAJOR* case how are you going after them? Where to start? Even if you can show damages how much manpower will be used just finding the real sender and not taking some granny to cort for having a hacked win98 box? My prior experiances with cops and with lawyers tends to be that if all you have are some text files with numbers you may be SOL on getting them to court unless you can lift data from the PC they used that proves they did it.... Any decent lawyer can come up with a whole slew of ways to make the email you got worthless unless you can find it on the accused's disks or printouts. IMHO if I was a spamer I'd be wiping disks often and even selling my drives and buying new ones all the time just for that resason. Perhaps I am over-stating it.... But perhaps the spamers will keep beeing a "Moving target" just as long as we let them. Given the current state of things if I were a spamer I'd just keep spamming and laugh at our laws, and send more spam on how to stop spam. That's my concern.... > > To quote an old Issac Asimov book title: "Against > stupidity, the gods > > themselves contend in vain." > > That's Schiller, I think. Asimov was quoting. > Yes it was... :-) > > > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 23:17:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10683 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO89v-0002fv-UO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO4HBV0010280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO89v-0002fj-EO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:11 -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 XAA10678 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO89t-0004UG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO89t-0004UD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO89k-0002dE-TM; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO89E-0002aZ-NY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:16:28 -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 XAA10656 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:16:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO89C-0004RJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:16:26 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO89B-0004RD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:16:26 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-074.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.74]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id C5FA564DC6 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:46:24 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] new to list Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:50:10 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hi I am new on this list. and would like some pointers so I can bring myself up to speed on spam reduction systems. I am particularly interested in the IM2000 type systems, this is my direction of choice and one I independantly arrived at Thanks in advance Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 23 23:26:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10843 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO8IW-00033d-M5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO4Q4mK011747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO8IW-00032v-HI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:04 -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 XAA10833 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO8IU-0004fO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO8IU-0004fL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO8IS-0002zj-W8; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:26:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AO8Hm-0002xy-Vb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:19 -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 XAA10817 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AO8Hk-0004dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:17 -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 1AO8Hk-0004d7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:25:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-384-317.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.215.103]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOU00EYP9FQH3@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:22:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Pull Systems (was Re: [Asrg] new to list) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC18747.3060800@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 23 Nov 2003 23:21:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Chris wrote: > > Hi > > I am new on this list. and would like some pointers so I can bring myself up > to speed on spam reduction systems. > > I am particularly interested in the IM2000 type systems, this is my > direction of choice and one I independantly arrived at > > Thanks in advance > Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 02:31:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28245 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOBBb-0004rC-WF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO7V76q018668 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOBBb-0004qw-A1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:07 -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 CAA28230 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOBBX-0007Xx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOBBW-0007Xj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOB9b-0004fy-OL; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:29:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOB9S-0004fd-3x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:28:54 -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 CAA28177 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOB9N-0007Nq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:28:49 -0500 Received: from ns.dcn.ru ([212.220.30.10] helo=www.dcn.ru) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOB9M-0007Nh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:28:48 -0500 Received: from edo.dcn.ru (Edo.dcn.ru [10.10.10.212]) by www.dcn.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F1BE2AB7 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:28:47 +0500 (YEKT) From: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - LMAP - Deployment User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <3FB04298.10507@solidmatrix.com> <000801c3acad$af7cb090$0300a8c0@A3> <3FB849BB.9010102@zemos.net> In-Reply-To: <3FB849BB.9010102@zemos.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311241228.48995.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 24 Nov 2003 12:28:48 +0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > Dave Atherton wrote: > > Use of TEMPFAIL for this purpose could be based on a > > constant percentage probability or a gradually increasing probability > > between a start date and a target date. In fact, behavior have to be a bit more complicated, not to provoke spammers to do countless retransmit attempts. I.e. accept or reject decision has to last for some time period (shorter than 1 hour but longer than 1 minute). At the same time fixed probability p is a good statistical simplification, so I will use it. > > A concern is that some messages will go undelivered prior to "M Day". At > > a very low probability of LMAP-related TEMPFAIL, the next attempt will > > usually get the message through. If I understand correctly, however, > > given enough messages, some messages will eventually fail to be > > transferred because the retries are also unlucky enough to get TEMPFAILs > > and the originating users will get Non-Delivery Notifications. How well > > might such a plan be received by admins and ISP owners? It is always better to consider it as an alternative to absolute enforcement. Nevertheless, the issue have to be cleared out. First, final delivery may be _guaranteed_ by history-aware algorithm only. It may be MTA-level code or some temporary plugin having own data storage. If a site has greylisting already deployed, there are no additional costs here. Second, if history-aware approach is not acceptable on some reasons (storage, CPU, complexity or other costs) historyless one is possible. Due to RFC 2821, the sending MTA is expected to attempt retransmit every two or three hours until the message is 4-5 days old. Taking 2*24 hours to be the worst acceptable delay, it is 24/3*2 = 16 attempts. If p_rej is a probability of TEMPFAIL reject due to sender's non-compliance, then power(p_rej,16) is an approximate probability of an unacceptable delay. p_rej may be also considered as an approximate spam reject ratio while considering non-LMAP-compliant spam messages. p_rej power(p_rej,16) 0.3 4.3e-09 0.5 1.5e-05 0.75 0.01 (~1%) 0.8 0.028 (~3%) 0.9 ~19% 0.95 ~44% 0.99 ~85% If worst acceptable delay is 4 days, every value in the right column have to be squared. I.e. some significant enforcement still may be achieved by cheap historyless methods while keeping percentage of nondelivered legitimate messages low. Assuming that retransmit "usually happen" exactly n hours after previous attempt, the historyless approach may be significantly improved. But it is not an axiom and may not be truth at all. Philip Miller wrote: > For the sake of consistent usage, let's define the following terms: > 1. LMAP-compliant domain: a domain that authorizes outgoing MTAs as > specified by the forthcoming LMAP RFC. > 2. LMAP-compliant MTA: an MTA that sends mail as the domain that authorizes > it. NB - this refers to the individual servers, not the software they run. > (Note 1, below) > 3. LMAP-enforcing MTA: a recipient MTA which looks up the LMAP data for the > sender, and acts as follows: > a) If LMAP data is not available, acts according to local policy. > Initially, the default would be to accept it as it is now. > b) If LMAP data is available and the sending MTA is approved, it's > accepted, possibly with the insertion of an additional header (should be > standardized) indicating that it was checked. Note that the message could > still be rejected on other grounds, despite presenting proper LMAP data. > c) If LMAP data is available and the sending MTA is NOT approved, it must > reject any messages sent with a PERMFAIL. This is the primary case LMAP is > targetting, and we should require its implementation from the beginning. Good. > I think this is exactly the point. At first, most admins would see their > queues backing up with TEMPFAILs. If we've gotten enough publicity for this > deployment plan, they'll make the connection "no LMAP -> random TEMPFAILs". > So most admins will be pretty quick to implement LMAP. For the few that > aren't/don't, complaints from their users that mail isn't getting through > should enact a pretty swift change. Yes. So, the requirements: 1. Before deploying any enforcement a site may use autonotification of administrators or/and senders which use non-LMAP-compliant MTAs. It is undesirable, especially for larger sites, to send notification against every message received from non-compliant MTA - at least, during early phase of world-wide LMAP deployment. Notification must have null ("<>") return address and must be directed to sender address taken from the envelope. (Note: volcanic bombardment of adresses, being forged by spammers, must be avoided. Of course, it is generally unavoidable.) 2. Before turning strict LMAP enforcement on, site may implement some kind of gradual enforcement using transient message rejection (SMTP 4?? reply code). Probability of rejection has to grow slowly, starting from small values. The bigger the site the smaller starting value has to be and the slower it has to grow. Recommended date for strict LMAP enforcement is one year after RFC publication date (as a proposed standard?). -- Viktor S. Grishchenko _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 04:44:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01541 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AODGq-0005gk-Rj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAO9ieUA021863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AODGm-0005gU-7y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:36 -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 EAA01528 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AODGi-0001HE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AODGi-0001HB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AODGJ-0005cB-Ed; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AODFn-0005RQ-J5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:43:35 -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 EAA01497 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AODFi-0001GD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:43:30 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AODFh-0001GA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:43:29 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AODFj-0007nc-2y; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:43:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311232125412.SM01920@viper1> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 24 Nov 2003 09:43:31 +0000 Status: O > > > > I don't know about you Danny, but most of the spam I receive > Denny -- with an 'e' please ;-) Apologies. > You have a SPAM with email headers that point to ISP "X" IP 1.2.3.4 but > it > also has headers showing say 3 other IP's / domains with some of them > showing forged domain names in conflict with the IP's > And the from xxxx@isp.com does not match any of the headers. > And the Opt Out line uses a closed / fake email and or web site. > And all the other crud they do.... > > So unless you have a *MAJOR* case how are you going after them? Where to > start? > Even if you can show damages how much manpower will be used just finding > the > real sender and not taking some granny to cort for having a hacked win98 > box? > I'm sure that we're all aware of the deceptions that spammers practice. I expect that it will be *difficult* to get successful prosecutions. Your position (I hope I've got this right) is that laws like this are difficult or expensive to enforce? Yes, of course. I'm not sure that it follows that these laws won't (can't) be enforced. I expect that it will depend on how much political pressure is put on prosecutors, law enforcement. It may be an interesting test of one of those things commonly asserted - that much spam comes from a small number of US based spammers. Shut down those operations and see what happens :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 06:18:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03934 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOEjJ-0001bP-Bg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAOBI9sN006153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOEjJ-0001bA-7M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:09 -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 GAA03918 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOEjF-0002QO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOEjE-0002QL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOEjA-0001Yt-R3; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOEib-0001YM-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:17:25 -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 GAA03908 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOEiX-0002Pz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:17:21 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOEiW-0002Pt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:17:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 75130 invoked by uid 1013); 24 Nov 2003 11:17:20 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI Message-ID: <20031124111720.GA52177@Space.Net> References: <3FBFFABB.3040203@solidmatrix.com> <3FC02750.2020100@zemos.net> <4186984106.20031123100649@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4186984106.20031123100649@brandenburg.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, 24 Nov 2003 12:17:20 +0100 Status: O On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 10:06:49AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > in fact, it does not specify that it must be the domain of the MTA. > Perhaps it is ok to have the domain of the author (From/Sender). It makes me wonder why just AOL, Yahoo and Hotmail bring this proposal. If it were a big ISP with thousands of customers all with their own domain I'd understand. But with that crypto cookie in the header based on a domain all I could do is either block e.g. AOL as a whole or not block any mail from AOL at all. So the solution is only helping THEM to reduce the spam sent into their systems, but it doesn't help any one else if the spam is injected via webmail*yahoo.com or *aol.com. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 13:49:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20948 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLlV-0007oL-6a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAOImrRa030015 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLlU-0007o1-Ut for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:52 -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 NAA20888 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLlS-0002AU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLlS-0002AI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLkf-0007j4-DK; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLkD-0007iW-MJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:47:34 -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 NAA20849 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLk9-00028z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:47:29 -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 1AOLk9-00028o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:47:29 -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 1AOLp8-0002V8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:52:38 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:19:44 EST." <3FC02750.2020100@zemos.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:52:37 -0500 Status: O Philip Miller wrote: > The quoted description sounds like an end-to-end implementation of a > designated outgoing MTA protocol. This actually sounds better, on first > impressions, than the current LMAP ideas, for three big reasons. It's substantially similar in concept to LMAP if it does header verification, or PGP signing, if it does body verification. Without a more complete description, I can't tell for sure. If it authenticates the message body, then it has the problem that PGP and S/MIME has: broken MTA's mucking with the message content. It's not critical, but it is a consideration. Another consideration is that the recipient then has to receive the entire message before the signature can be validated. Solutions which work on headers alone may have more efficient use of network resources. If it authenticates the headers, then the "encrypted code" in the header can be re-used in other, unrelated messages, to send spam. Time limits can be put on the tokens, but that's basically a hack around an inadequate design. e.g. Some choices for the token, and pros/cons: token = signature(nonce) + nonce pro: simple con: easily stealable token = signature(nonce + source IP) + nonce pro: better con: forwarders don't have the same source IP, and can thus claim to be "forwarding" mail, to spam people token = signature(nonce + source IP + timeout) + nonce + timeout) pro: better con: still onl limits impact of attack, but doesn't prevent the attack. I'd like to see a signature scheme for headers only which can't be trivially attacked or abused. I'm not sure one exists. > First, this would be easier for senders to implement, because it > doesn't require listing every MTA in DNS and it keeps configuration > of a new MTA confined to that machine (all that has to be done is > loading the private key). Which will REQUIRE communication with the owner of that public key. This isn't substantially different than the work required to set up LMAP: "please give me key", versus "please list X in DNS". > Second, it would require much less change to DNS, because only a > single new record would be needed for each domain, rather than one > for each server sending for that domain. That is true. The ongoing maintenance costs of this solution will be lower than that for any LMAP solution. > Third, it would eliminate the issues of forwarding (.forward, > aliases), because it checks the message originator in all > circumstances. Once you have forwarding, it can be abused to send spam. See the discussion above. > Now, my concerns: why have they not published a technical proposal for this > yet? Politics. > From a different part of the article: > "The ASRG is considering three major proposals, Reverse MX, Sender Permitted > From and Designated Sender Protocol, John R. Levine, co-chair of the > organization said. > "They're bascially all variations on the same theme, which is the attempt to > identify mail that's not coming from where it should," Levine said." > > Perhaps Alan DeKok would be more qualified to comment on this, but this > statement is not really accurate in light of the work on a combined > LMAP draft. There is no combined LMAP draft. There is an LMAP evaluation document, which discusses the costs and benefits of LMAP-style proposals. The article goes on to say: "The technologies would allow a mail server receiving a message to query the domain that a message purports to be from, asking if the server that sent the mail is authorized to send from that domain." I prefer the *positive* statemente of the design goal of LMAP over a negative one. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 13:56:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21337 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLsV-0000Kj-BT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAOIu7cJ001275 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLsV-0000KU-5a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:07 -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 NAA21301 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLsS-0002Hw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLsS-0002Ht-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLsQ-0000G3-Ba; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOLrw-0000FB-Ts for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:55:32 -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 NAA21275 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:55:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOLru-0002Hd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:55:30 -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 1AOLru-0002Ha-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:55:30 -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 1AOLwt-0002Vh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:00:39 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Sender Authentication - DNS + PKI In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:13 EST." <20031124013713.GA3751@m433> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:00:39 -0500 Status: O Walter Dnes wrote: > Why do they need an encrypted header ? Wouldn't a list of valid > sending domains or IP addresses be sufficient ? Then it would be LMAP. > Another worry is compromised home machines. A trojan can call the > Windows API and run the dialup-and-send-email processes. For all > intents and purposes, the end-user might be sitting at the keyboard. > There is no for the ISP way to tell. All messaging systems suffer from this vulnerability. There is no way to stop it. Therefore it doesn't make sense to try to stop it. Instead, it makes sense to design systems which allow the abused originator to discover the abuse, and deal with it. Systems which have been tried or proposed are various methods of accountability tracking, content filtering on outgoing mail, etc. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Nov 24 20:00:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14656 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AORZ3-0000AH-5r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAP10PdL000627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AORZ3-0000A2-1w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:25 -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 UAA14631 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AORZ1-0002E8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AORZ0-0002E5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AORYl-00006L-LU; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:00:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AORYS-00005T-5R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:59:48 -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 TAA14609 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:59:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AORYQ-0002Du-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:59:46 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AORYN-0002Dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:59:45 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-124.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.124]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 9696462349 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:38 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3FC26859.2080307@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 25 Nov 2003 11:33:23 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I would like to re-investigate pull mail systems as a viable solution to reducing unsolicited mail and apologise in advance for the length of this e-mail. for a refresher course, a pull system is where the recipient is notified that e-mail is waiting for them at xyz.com from person@xyz.com. they then can connect and accept the e-mail or not. from what I have read people have only considered a *pull* as recipient initiated. I suggest moving that responsibility to the recipients ISP's server. Thus negating the need for any changes to occur at the recipients address (no need for new software) neither does the sender require any new software, standard SMTP will suffice. To make the following description easier I will make some clarifications a/ sender is the person sending the e-mail (can be a bulk mail system) and can be on a dial up connection b/ senders host is the senders smtp server and is usually his ISP c/ recipients host is the recipients smtp server and is usually his ISP d/ recipient is the person to whom the mail is intended and can be on a dial up connection e/ transport system is not mentioned and is largely unchanged (probably some new commands) d/ "his" means his or her or an automated system and is not meant to be sexist. in a classic configuration, mail transport occurs something like this... 1/ sender connects to senders host machine 2/ senders host accepts mail from sender (usually authenticated) 3/ senders host contacts recipients host machine 4/ mail is forwarded to recipients host machine 5/ receiver connects to his host machine and uploads mail I know this is very rough, it is not meant to be precise. so please lets move to the next stage In my preferred implementation of a pull system some additional steps are added.. 1/ sender connects to smtp host machine 2/ senders host accepts mail from sender (usually authenticated) 3/ senders host contacts recipients host machine 3a/ senders host sends mail waiting command (pull request) 3b/ recipients host acknowledges receipt of mail waiting command with a unique message identifier. 3c/ senders host queues message tagged with ID 4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms based on recipients personal preferences 4a/ recipients host contacts senders host with unique identifier, thus authenticating sender. 4b/ recipients host issues a message accepted or denied command (with the reason) 4c/ if accepted mail is forwarded to recipients host machine 5/ receiver connects to his smtp host machine and uploads mail You will notice that for the sender and receiver the process is unchanged. while on the surface this may appear to increase network traffic ultimately it will significantly reduce it a lot of the mail that is currently blasted into the network simply will not happen, including e-mails where the recipient no longer exists (bounced e-mail). In addition I propose that e-mails all have a "Class" header this class header should be sent with the original pull request and can form the basis of class filtering. The user can then select to accept mail that is unsolicited based on its class. i.e. I will accept unsolicited mail from computer sales companies but not from tampon manufacturers (I'm a guy ok) How these would be categorised is open to debate. I assume that such classification systems are already in wide use and can be tailored to suit. Yes it is true a sender could abuse this system but of course would soon be identified. also this header could become the centre piece of legislation (for those who believe a legislative approach is the only way) and would form the foundation of any action against a regular spammer. A word on anonymity The pull system does not allow for anonymous e-mails, nor should it. For anonymity people should use forums and news groups. (for political dissent etc..) E-mail is for 1 to 1 or 1 to many contact. in this scenario anonymity is not desirable (nor acceptable). If I get an abusive/threatening/spam e-mail I would like to know who sent it. I don't think the sender has any valid reason for hiding apart from cowardice. If the e-mail contains sensitive information that the sender does not want intercepted and then traced back to them, they should either not use an open system like e-mail or they should encrypt the message by means readily available. Regards Chris P.S. please respond with targeted criticisms or suggestions, do not make blanket statements. then individual problems can be ironed out or explained. P.S.S. Also please remember that the current system is seriously broken. If you don't firmly believe that please give me your e-mail address and I will forward my daily spam to you. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 05:03:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10637 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOa2j-0007at-OM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPA3bjC029185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOa2j-0007ae-Fm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:37 -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 FAA10623 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOa2g-0001Bg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOa2f-0001Bc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOa2A-0007Xd-Me; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOa1H-0007Wu-PU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:02:08 -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 FAA10586 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOa1E-0001Ax-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:02:04 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOa1E-0001Au-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:02:04 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOa1F-0005TU-1e; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:02:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "Chris" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:02:05 +0000 Status: O > 4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms > based on recipients personal preferences And what if recipients policy requires content / body based filtering? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 07:49:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15798 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOcd3-0006V5-Li for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPCnHQI024983 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOcd3-0006Us-Hm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:17 -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 HAA15784 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOcd2-00046E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOcd2-00046B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOccn-0006SY-Jg; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOcby-0006RI-HP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:48:10 -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 HAA15780 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOcbx-00045R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:48:09 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOcbx-00045O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:48:09 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-174.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.174]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 98FFF609E4; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:18:03 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Jon Kyme" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:17:21 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O If the recipient wants to do the all or some of the filtering then he simply sets his personal filter as none/some etc. The pull system is not a filtering system by itself. but by virtue of the implementation it can be efficiently used as such. The most important thing about the pull system is that the recipients host (ISP) has to retrieve the message, the sender cannot falsify its identity. it has to truthfully identify itself or the message can never be retrieved. unlike some other pull systems none of the actual message body is sent, just enough information to identify the sender and classify the content. Also because the sytem has a "denied" message. the sender can discover the reason the message was not approved and make amends. Often legitimate e-mail is filtered and lost with neither party knowing that it has. I personally see the system as a "stage one" filter the user then could have their own filters to fine tune so the pull system may say refuse all e-mail from china, a known haven for spammers then the user sets his own filters to filter on content. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: 25 November 2003 8:32 PM > To: Chris > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > > 4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms > > based on recipients personal preferences > > And what if recipients policy requires content / body based filtering? > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 09:03:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17804 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdmg-0001QP-K1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPE3IAF005476 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdmg-0001QF-Et for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:18 -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 JAA17790 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdmf-0005Pa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdme-0005PX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdmP-0001Nz-Iz; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdli-0001MA-09 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:02:18 -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 JAA17780 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdlg-0005PN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:02:16 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdlf-0005PK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:02:15 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAPE2F09027558; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:02:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:02:15 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111320D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bill Stewart'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] 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, 25 Nov 2003 06:02:11 -0800 Status: O > Especially for domains, it's important to do some validation, > though in the absence of widely-deployed DNSSEC, it's hard to > do automatically. DNSSEC is not happening, blame Randy Bush and the IESG for refusing the working group consensus and imposing their own idea that cannot be deployed. An experimental protocol that increases the volume of data in the .com zone by an order of magnitude (read Gbs of data) is simply unacceptable. We do not need DNSSEC, we just need a notice in the DNS. It would be a relatively easy task to walk the .com zone and dump out a list of all the zones which contain a 'do not spam' TXT property record. This has the secondary advantage that it is not necessary to actualy consult the list, the authoritative information is in DNS. > There's a scalability problem that has to be solved, > which is how to prevent a DOS-by-signing-up-too-many-addresses attack. I do not expect that to be a problem, that would be a problem for the contractor. Limit the number of direct registrations from a particular IP address within a given time interval. It is likely to result in the cost of the system being considerably more than the cost of a couple of mid range servers and some software. This is not a new phenomena. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 09:12:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18095 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdvB-0002K9-Ci for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPEC5o4008934 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdvA-0002K1-NF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:04 -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 JAA18083 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdv9-0005Uv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOdv8-0005Us-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOdv6-0002Hp-UJ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOduW-0002Go-Nh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:11:24 -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 JAA18069 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:11:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOduT-0005UK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:11:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOduT-0005UH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:11:21 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAPEBJLR011699; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:11:19 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111320E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris'" , Jon Kyme , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 25 Nov 2003 06:11:11 -0800 Status: O 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from sources that you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email replacement protocol. We already have two pull protocols, NNTP and RSS. NNTP suffers from the practical dependence on the broken peer-to-peer flood fill routing model. Although this is not essential to the protocol one of the responses of usenet to their spam problem was to demand that isps block external nntp connections. If you are on comcast you cannot connect to GMANE. RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content than NNTP, is considerably simpler and has a significant user base even though there are practically no clients (!) My skepticism here is towards the distinctions made between push and pull. If you look at the standard email transfer it involves a push SMTP interaction followed by a pull POP interaction. In NNTP you have the same type of interaction but the partitioning is slightly different. In effect you have the world pushing garbage at your news server and then pull out the small quantity that you are interested in. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 11:21:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25179 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOfwW-0004m3-V2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPGLaVe018347 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOfwW-0004lq-Nc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:36 -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 LAA25166 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOfwV-0000H8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOfwV-0000H5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOfvz-0004gd-17; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOfuw-0004fG-4m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:20:02 -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 LAA25102 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOfuv-0000GJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:19:57 -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 1AOfuu-0000GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:19:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AOg03-0002nl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:25:15 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:33:23 +1030." 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, 25 Nov 2003 11:25:14 -0500 Status: O "Chris" wrote: > I would like to re-investigate pull mail systems as a viable solution to > reducing unsolicited mail What's wrong with the current system? If you don't know what's wrong with the current system, and why/how it's being abused, you have no idea if your re-designed system will have the same (or worse) problems. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 11:30:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25479 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOg4j-0005VT-FX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPGU5eM021161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOg4j-0005VE-AH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:05 -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 LAA25461 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOg4i-0000Or-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOg4h-0000Oo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOg4f-0005T3-O9; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOg4b-0005S8-5q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:57 -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 LAA25456 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOg4a-0000Ol-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:56 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOg4Z-0000Oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:29:55 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOg4Y-0003lj-LC for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:29:54 +0000 Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:29:54 +0000 Status: O > 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from sources > that > you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email replacement > protocol. Sure, I don't really see how fiddling SMTP to allow envelope (+some headers?) and body to be transported separately - which is what this would boil down to - can have any real advantage. As Phillip suggests, existing pull protocols can be very useful for certain application swhich currently use SMTP, "mailing lists" /discussion groups for instance. This is also done with POP, IMAP and HTTP of course. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 11:56:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26992 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOgU0-00086x-N2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPGuCDJ031173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOgU0-00086i-Fj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:12 -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 LAA26980 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOgTz-0000z6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOgTy-0000z3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOgTp-00084S-FK; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOgTZ-00083v-95 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:55:45 -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 LAA26956 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:55:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOgTX-0000yb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:55:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOgTX-0000yY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:55:43 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAPGtALY027406; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:55:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:54:53 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113210@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 25 Nov 2003 08:54:52 -0800 Status: O It is worth noting that the word spam was coined in response to a failure that appeared in NNTP, a pull system long before the problem spread to email. Specifically it was Dick Depew's ARMM robot... The issue is not how the bits are shipped. Every email communication is by its nature initiated by the sender. It is the ability to initiate without any form of authorization that creates the spam problem. In effect the sender can consume unbounded respources. I don't see how tweaking the details of the protocol affects this. The key issue is communicating the consent to receive. I have previously made a proposal on this topic - I will repost in RFC format later, that allows this information to be communicated using the SMTP protocol. The problem with consent to receive is that it is available only in a very limited number of circumstances. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:25 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > "Chris" wrote: > > I would like to re-investigate pull mail systems as a > viable solution to > > reducing unsolicited mail > > What's wrong with the current system? > > If you don't know what's wrong with the current system, and why/how > it's being abused, you have no idea if your re-designed system will > have the same (or worse) problems. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 16:55:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12943 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOl9P-0004EJ-8L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAPLtFdt016253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOl9P-0004E4-34 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:15 -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 QAA12919 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOl9N-0007Vr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOl9M-0007Vo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOl9D-0004Bk-87; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOl8g-00048Q-Dh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:54:30 -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 QAA12907 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOl8e-0007Uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:54:28 -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 1AOl8d-0007Ur-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:54:27 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AOiui-0002tD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:31:56 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:11:11 PST." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111320E@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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:31:55 -0500 Status: O "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > My skepticism here is towards the distinctions made between push and pull. > If you look at the standard email transfer it involves a push SMTP > interaction followed by a pull POP interaction. And spam isn't a problem at the POP stage, other than it's existence. Spam is a problem at the SMTP stage, due to DoS, relay attempts, etc. > In NNTP you have the same type of interaction but the partitioning > is slightly different. In effect you have the world pushing garbage > at your news server and then pull out the small quantity that you > are interested in. In SMTP, the sender can also request amplification of the spam, via multiple RCPT TO's. That's impossible in NNTP. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 19:49:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19888 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-00061S-6k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ0nEc6023130 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrl-00060t-LG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:13 -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 TAA19856 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003qz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003qs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrZ-0005rT-I7; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOmCr-0000YT-Tw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:54 -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 SAA15833 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-192.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.192]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id A5F4462A8F for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:32:47 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:32 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O To put it simplistically The current system is broken because anyone can inject mail into it with no fear of backtracing Pull won't prevent spam, in fact it is more about giving choice to the recipient and taking it away from the sender the sender essentaily "offers" mail to a recipient the recipient chooses whether or not to accept it Some people actually like spam, just like my wife likes catalogues in the letter box > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:55 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > "Chris" wrote: > > I would like to re-investigate pull mail systems as a viable solution to > > reducing unsolicited mail > > What's wrong with the current system? > > If you don't know what's wrong with the current system, and why/how > it's being abused, you have no idea if your re-designed system will > have the same (or worse) problems. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 20:39:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19892 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-00061n-C0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ0nEfo023160 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-000619-2F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -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 TAA19864 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrk-0003rC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003r2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrb-0005t1-HU; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOmCt-0000Yh-E3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:55 -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 SAA15847 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-192.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.192]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E3E762A21 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:32:48 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:33 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > > 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from sources > > that > > you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email > replacement > > protocol. > > > Sure, I don't really see how fiddling SMTP to allow envelope (+some > headers?) and body to be transported separately - which is what this would > boil down to - if this is what you think then you have missed the point the point is the recipients server then retrieves the email body **if** it passes initial tests (less load on network) such as the class is acceptable, the origin (country?) is acceptable. the act of retrieving the mail is in fact a verification of the identity of the source server it is this verification that holds the most power. spammers will find it much harder to hide behind falsified information if they do their ISP becomes ultimately responsible for allowing them to spam the network can have any real advantage. As Phillip suggests, existing > pull protocols can be very useful for certain application swhich currently > use SMTP, "mailing lists" /discussion groups for instance. This is also > done with POP, IMAP and HTTP of course. not relevant > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 25 20:39:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19891 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-00061m-Bb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ0nEgd023152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-00060x-05 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -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 TAA19862 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrk-0003r6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003qv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnra-0005rb-AV; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOmCs-0000Yc-Bn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:54 -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 SAA15838 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCp-0001Yg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:51 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:51 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-192.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.192]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D6A462AA9 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:32:49 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113210@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:34 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > It is worth noting that the word spam was coined in response to a failure > that appeared in NNTP, a pull system long before the problem spread to > email. > NNTP does allow a news server to ignore mail originating from known spam/objectionable sources it is the CHOICE of news server administrator to accept or deny from a source many news servers refuse to accept certain newsgroups this is an example of a *pull* system functioning perfectly and a good example of why pull should be a serious contender for use in e-mail > Specifically it was Dick Depew's ARMM robot... > > > The issue is not how the bits are shipped. Every email communication is by > its nature initiated by the sender. It is the ability to initiate without > any form of authorization that creates the spam problem. In effect the > sender can consume unbounded respources. I don't see how tweaking the > details of the protocol affects this. you miss the point if the recipient refuses the email it does not even get onto the transport system just a small portion of it In the end this is about giving choice to the recipient! > > The key issue is communicating the consent to receive. I have previously > made a proposal on this topic - I will repost in RFC format later, that > allows this information to be communicated using the SMTP protocol. > > The problem with consent to receive is that it is available only in a very > limited number of circumstances. > > Phill how does one police a "consent to receive"? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 20:39:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19889 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrm-00061X-7n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ0nEbw023133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrl-00060s-H5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:13 -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 TAA19858 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003r1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOnrj-0003qt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOnrY-0005rL-Vx; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOmCr-0000YS-QC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:53 -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 SAA15831 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCo-0001YQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOmCn-0001YH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:50 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-192.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.192]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id ADEA662ABB for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:32:45 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111320E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:30 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from > sources that > you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email replacement > protocol. there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement Implementation is relativally simple > > > We already have two pull protocols, NNTP and RSS. NNTP suffers from the > practical dependence on the broken peer-to-peer flood fill routing model. > Although this is not essential to the protocol one of the responses of > usenet to their spam problem was to demand that isps block external nntp > connections. If you are on comcast you cannot connect to GMANE. not relevant > > RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content than NNTP, is > considerably simpler and has a significant user base even though there are > practically no clients (!) not relevant > > > My skepticism here is towards the distinctions made between push and pull. > If you look at the standard email transfer it involves a push SMTP > interaction followed by a pull POP interaction. POP is unchanged the purpose of pull is to enable the destination host machine (not the pop client) to accurately determine the source without the need for structural changes to the underlying protocol low cost and effective. but most importantly transparent to the clients. > In NNTP you have the same > type of interaction but the partitioning is slightly different. In effect > you have the world pushing garbage at your news server and then > pull out the > small quantity that you are interested in. not relevant. Though I will state that I first came up with the idea to combat spam on nntp. I then realised its application to e-mail was much more important _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 21:21:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22077 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpIm-0001YP-RJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ2LCkj005967 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpIm-0001YA-Lo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:12 -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 VAA22060 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:20:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpIk-00050L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpIj-00050G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpIc-0001Vp-7U; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpIB-0001Sx-7k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:20:35 -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 VAA22036 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpI8-0004za-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:20:32 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpI8-0004zX-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:20:32 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQ2KV5R024989; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:20:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:20:31 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113216@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 25 Nov 2003 18:20:30 -0800 Status: O > there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement > Implementation is relativally simple Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major providers of email infrastructure? The mistake many people make about the IETF is believing that the way standards get deployed is you propose something in the IETF and the industry then eagerly deploys it. In practice the industry takes little to no notice of IETF activities. The only way a protocol is going to get deployed is if you have a propagation strategy to drive deployment. There are 3000++ RFCs and of those maybe thirty have ever been implemented and deployed on a network wide scale. > > RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content > than NNTP, is > > considerably simpler and has a significant user base even > though there are > > practically no clients (!) > > not relevant If you want people to take notice of you you need to explain why your proposal is better than an infrastructure that has five years of deployment experience at this point and is widely implemented. I suggest that if you want to take this further you submit a draft and see if you can persuade people to read it. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 21:55:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22792 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOppg-00039S-Ht for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ2tC1o012113 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOppg-00039I-EG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:12 -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 VAA22736 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:54:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOppd-0005Mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOppd-0005Mf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOppW-00033w-Ni; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpol-00032c-1f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:54:15 -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 VAA22684 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpoh-0005Kl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:54:11 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpog-0005Kh-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:54:10 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-197.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.197]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C7596308D for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:24:05 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113216@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:27:51 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > > there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement > > Implementation is relativally simple > > Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major > providers of > email infrastructure? No of course not but that does not mean that it cannot happen this is a research group. we should research and then make recommendations I am only adding or revisiting something I think has potential and been overlooked for reasons unfathomable but thats why I did my "revisited" so I could fathom the reasons. I read the priors and can truly say not much in the way of valid reasoning was put forward just a lot of knocking. > > The mistake many people make about the IETF is believing that the way > standards get deployed is you propose something in the IETF and > the industry > then eagerly deploys it. Of course not, but without properly researched alternatives, there is nothing to deploy > > In practice the industry takes little to no notice of IETF activities. The > only way a protocol is going to get deployed is if you have a propagation > strategy to drive deployment. Yes I have considered this, but it is too early to go into details. lets see if the flag will fly first > There are 3000++ RFCs and of those maybe > thirty have ever been implemented and deployed on a network wide scale. maybe most are passed over propriatory systems will always be such but when it comes to interoperability RFC's are often the starting place Its where I turn when I want to develop some interoperable software > > > > > RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content > > than NNTP, is > > > considerably simpler and has a significant user base even > > though there are > > > practically no clients (!) > > > > not relevant > > If you want people to take notice of you you need to explain why your > proposal is better than an infrastructure that has five years of > deployment > experience at this point and is widely implemented. NNTP I have spoken of in another message as to why it is an indicator of the potential success of a "pull" mail system NNTP most often operates pull on a newsgroup level not a message by message basis But I am sure many administrators of news server who do offer filtering do exactly what is suggested. from my understanding (limited), RSS is not e-mail, it has no relationship to e-mail. and could not be easily implemented as e-mail It may be a good replacement for NNTP but that's debateable. (blogs) I believe that RSS is a one to many system is it not ? (like nntp) To replace email with some sort of RSS would require a major change to the way people do things and everyone would have to change their current software. The idea is a minimal impact system that gets the results or at least reduces the problem to a manageable level and I keep saying this but it is the central point... It gives the choice to the recipient. before the actual e-mail is even sent. > I suggest that if you want to take this further you submit a draft and see > if you can persuade people to read it. I need to know more before I do, if I do. thats why this thread. apart from IM2000 and Brett Watsons thesis I cannot find much. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 21:58:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22911 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpsR-0003Qc-6k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:58:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ2w3gP013166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:58:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpsQ-0003PK-RH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:58:02 -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 VAA22898 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpsN-0005Px-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpsN-0005Pu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOpsP-0003JY-2u; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOprd-0003J9-Mx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:13 -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 VAA22881 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOpra-0005PK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:10 -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 1AOpra-0005Ot-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:57:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-889.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.221.133]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOX007E5UUCAU@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:56:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113216@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "'Chris'" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC41667.5010600@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113216@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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:56:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content >>>>than NNTP, is >>>>>considerably simpler and has a significant user base even >>>>though there are >>>>>practically no clients (!) >>>>not relevant > > > If you want people to take notice of you you need to explain why your > proposal is better than an infrastructure that has five years of deployment > experience at this point and is widely implemented. > > I suggest that if you want to take this further you submit a draft and see > if you can persuade people to read it. > I would also suggest reading the following two documents which are used 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 Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 22:11:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23278 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOq4j-0004OQ-SX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ3AjDM016879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOq4j-0004OA-Nj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:45 -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 WAA23264 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOq4g-0005aI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOq4g-0005aF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOq41-0004Gc-Ll; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOq3i-0004GF-Fr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:09:42 -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 WAA23249 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOq3f-0005Zm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:09:39 -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 1AOq3e-0005ZD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:09:38 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-385-889.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.221.133]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOX0091YVCYLP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:07:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC41901.9060809@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:07:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>I suggest that if you want to take this further you submit a draft and see >>if you can persuade people to read it. > > > I need to know more before I do, if I do. thats why this thread. > apart from IM2000 and Brett Watsons thesis I cannot find much. > There were some discussions a while back as well. Some folks such as Brett Watson himself, and some others can provide more information if you contact them directly. So far no one has presented pros and cons of pull model vs. push model in a single document, which is something that might be useful, especially if the evaluation model in the tech considerations document is followed. However, the single overriding concern about such system is deployment. This is the same problem that faces anyone who wants to replace SMTP with a different protocol, push or pull, such as the various AMTP variants discussed earlier on. Majority of folks think that complete replacement of today's SMTP infrastructure would take too long and be too costly, while easier and almost as effective solutions exist. The problem with SMTP is not unique to that protocol itself, it is also found in other protocols and the structure of the Net itself - every user on the Net is inherently trusted by the network. That allows spam, trojans, viruses, DDOS attacks, etc. That problem need to be though through not just for spam, but for the Internet as whole. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Nov 25 23:39:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24676 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOrSJ-00070D-7I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ4dB0t026918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOrSJ-000704-22 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:11 -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 XAA24649 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOrSG-0006KX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOrSG-0006KU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOrS8-0006xd-6n; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOrRd-0006x5-Er for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:29 -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 XAA24638 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOrRb-0006Js-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:27 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOrRa-0006Jo-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:26 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-197.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.197]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id A0A54633BB; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:08:23 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC41901.9060809@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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:12:10 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > However, the single overriding concern about such system is deployment. > This is the same problem that faces anyone who wants to replace SMTP > with a different protocol, push or pull, such as the various AMTP > variants discussed earlier on. Majority of folks think that complete > replacement of today's SMTP infrastructure would take too long and be > too costly, while easier and almost as effective solutions exist. > This is one of the main reasons I am for a "pull" system based on smtp rfc821 it is do-able, requires limited software replacement and can be achieved in a reasonable time frame (2yrs?) If software vendors (and I agree with Phill, this is an *if*) get on board it can be a part of their next "upgrade" it does not require any fundamental change to the system just some additional commands on top of the already functioning system Remember my version does not require the POP client to do any work. All work is done by the SMTP hosts. the recipient (client) does not pull the messages the smtp host does that. the POP client e.g. ms outlook needs no modification For an example on the uptake of similar technology, how many server implementations still use http/1.0? Pull retains the "openness" of the current system. but ultimately flips the coin from push to pull and delivers the choice to the recipient not the sender. Spammers can still spam to their hearts content. if they follow the rules their mail will get delivered to those who want it. if they don't follow the rules they receive a reminder of what the rules are (message denied). if they continue to cause problems legislators can use the "class" header/command as the basis for drafting laws designed to stop mail abuse. e.g. porn vendors sending unsolicited e-mail that ends up in childrens mail boxes So an SMTP PULL server configured for a child would have a "class/adult deny all" setting if the sender classifies the pornographic email as a "class/general" then it could be actioned and a conviction sought and got. > > The problem with SMTP is not unique to that protocol itself, it is also > found in other protocols and the structure of the Net itself - every > user on the Net is inherently trusted by the network. That allows spam, > trojans, viruses, DDOS attacks, etc. That problem need to be though > through not just for spam, but for the Internet as whole. > This is most definately true. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 00:46:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26261 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOsVG-0001WB-1I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ5kHZt005829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOsVF-0001Vw-T5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:17 -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 AAA26252 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOsVD-000737-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOsVC-000734-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOsUz-0001QW-Mr; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOsUZ-0001Pr-Ft for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:45:36 -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 AAA26195 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOsUW-00072M-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:45:32 -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 1AOsUV-000726-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:45:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-366-551.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.146.70]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOY005FG2MLNQ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:44:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC43DCB.5080008@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 00:44:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>However, the single overriding concern about such system is deployment. >>This is the same problem that faces anyone who wants to replace SMTP >>with a different protocol, push or pull, such as the various AMTP >>variants discussed earlier on. Majority of folks think that complete >>replacement of today's SMTP infrastructure would take too long and be >>too costly, while easier and almost as effective solutions exist. >> > > > This is one of the main reasons I am for a "pull" system based on smtp > rfc821 > it is do-able, requires limited software replacement and can be achieved in > a reasonable time frame (2yrs?) > > If software vendors (and I agree with Phill, this is an *if*) get on board > it can be a part of their next "upgrade" > > it does not require any fundamental change to the system > > just some additional commands on top of the already functioning system > The question is not making the change, rather justifying it. You need to show how this system will reduce spam and by how much, in order to justify change to the entire Internet email architecture. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 01:23:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27202 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOt4u-00034x-GU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ6N8G4011829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOt4u-00034i-CR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:08 -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 BAA27196 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOt4r-0007Z5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOt4q-0007Z2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOt4m-00032X-Qh; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOt4U-00032H-SI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:22:42 -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 BAA27193 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOt4R-0007Yv-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:22:39 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOt4R-0007Ys-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:22:39 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-197.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.197]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D2FF632C4; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:52:36 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC43DCB.5080008@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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:56:23 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > The question is not making the change, rather justifying it. You need to > show how this system will reduce spam and by how much, in order to > justify change to the entire Internet email architecture. > Confused! how is this a "change to the entire Internet email architecture." It is a modification or even a "grafting" from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 1. SPAM AND CONSENT ... its definition varies from "unsolicited commercial email" to "any email the recipient does not want". Often there are no technical differences between spam and "acceptable" email. ... by this definition spam has no definition so its about choice, the recipients choice because it is he who ultimately decides what is spam for him(her) Therefore by empowering the recipient to control from whom he receives e-mail then in fact we obliterate it from the face of the earth. because what is left is acceptable to the recipient. the very first and most powerful application is the ability to deny mail from forged sources this is without a shadow of a doubt the source of most "objectionable" e-mail and this is achieved automatically the source MUST identify itself or it won't get the call back Chris P.S. I am surprised no one has raised one particular flaw that is ISP's who host scripts that are open to abuse e.g. some versions of formmail I am mentioning it now so people don't go "ah ha you missed that one didn't you" by virtue of the fact that the ISP get's an automatic reject message. ISP's should pick this up early and correct the problem _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 01:39:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27621 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtKN-0004IH-Pl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ6d7RF016499 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtKN-0004I2-Hp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:07 -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 BAA27617 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtKK-0007lF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtKJ-0007lC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtKG-0004EK-OW; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtJk-00049A-19 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:38:28 -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 BAA27593 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtJg-0007kZ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:38:24 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtJg-0007kW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:38:24 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-197.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.197]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 902ED634D3; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:08:23 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:12:10 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Actually I would to clarify one point No system can get rid of all spam my mentioning of formmail is just the tip of the iceberg viral spam systems will of course send mail from legitimate and verifiable addresses no system can stop this unless we manage to stop the spread of trojans and virii .... thats next weeks assignment Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 01:53:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27957 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtY4-00052D-R4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQ6rGL2019352 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtY4-000523-N2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:16 -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 BAA27946 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtY1-00008f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtY1-00008c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtXp-0004zZ-Ms; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOtXg-0004zC-8J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:52:52 -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 BAA27924 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOtXc-00008P-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:52:48 -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 1AOtXc-00008G-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:52:48 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-366-551.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.146.70]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOY001EW5OWKF@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:51:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC44D52.8050208@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 01:50:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>The question is not making the change, rather justifying it. You need to >>show how this system will reduce spam and by how much, in order to >>justify change to the entire Internet email architecture. >> > > > > Confused! how is this a "change to the entire Internet email architecture." > > It is a modification or even a "grafting" > I am kind of lost here. The current infrastructure does not require "pull", your will require "pull". Even though its running on top of SMTP and POP3, nevertheless you will require all clients to do "pull" in order to get email. This looks to me as a major change. > > from > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt > > 1. SPAM AND CONSENT > ... > its definition varies from > "unsolicited commercial email" to "any email the > recipient does not want". Often there are no technical > differences between spam and "acceptable" email. > ... > > by this definition spam has no definition > > so its about choice, the recipients choice because it is he who ultimately > decides what is spam for him(her) > > Therefore by empowering the recipient to control from whom he receives > e-mail then in fact we obliterate it from the face of the earth. > > because what is left is acceptable to the recipient. > > the very first and most powerful application is the ability to deny mail > from forged sources > this is without a shadow of a doubt the source of most "objectionable" > e-mail > > and this is achieved automatically the source MUST identify itself or it > won't get the call back > > What about the users that force the email to be pulled, just like the users who click on links in spam today? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 05:03:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00370 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwW2-0008CI-BJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQA3MCo031503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwVy-0008C0-Kx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:18 -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 FAA00364 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwVv-0002oy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwVv-0002ov-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwVi-00089i-6N; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwUh-00088c-KA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:02:00 -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 FAA00347 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwUe-0002oD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:01:56 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwUd-0002oA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:01:55 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOwUf-0000Lo-7m; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:01:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "Chris" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 10:01:57 +0000 Status: O >> >> Sure, I don't really see how fiddling SMTP to allow envelope (+some >> headers?) and body to be transported separately - which is what this >would >> boil down to - > > > >if this is what you think then you have missed the point > I *do* think this. Am I wrong in some way? Is there some way of doing some kind of useful pull mechanism for messaging that wouldn't rely on the separate transport of the message itself and some "meta-data" ? >> pull protocols can be very useful for certain application swhich >currently >> use SMTP, "mailing lists" /discussion groups for instance. This is also >> done with POP, IMAP and HTTP of course. > >not relevant > How can considerations of existing, widely used pull protocols NOT be relevant when someone proposes a NEW one. I'm not sure that you've really thought this through. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 05:23:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01106 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwpe-0000hj-NE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQANcgj002697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwpc-0000hN-Hy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:36 -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 FAA01100 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwpZ-00038C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwpY-000388-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwp3-0000ds-Vd; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOwow-0000de-9U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:22:54 -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 FAA01058 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:22:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwos-00037c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:22:50 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOwos-00037Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:22:50 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOwot-0004x7-9H for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:22:51 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:22:51 +0000 Status: O CANSPAM "The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan." Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 05:49:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01746 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxEK-0002Di-BB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQAn8Pj008528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxEK-0002DT-5A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:08 -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 FAA01714 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxEG-0003Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxEG-0003Rn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxED-0002A1-Jx; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxDS-00028F-Ku for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:14 -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 FAA01693 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxDO-0003RI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:11 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxDO-0003RF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:10 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQAmAGU024984; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:10 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQAmAhC011315; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:10 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQAmA01011313; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:10 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:48:10 -0500 Status: O Jon Kyme : > Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? > If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? I would be willing to draft a short RFC on spam and antispam headers. It could describe the following things: 1. The ADV convention 2. A new header, to be determined, that would be specifically for the purpose of a mandated advertising marker, 3. Priority: bulk 4. A new header, to be determined, specifically to carry markers injected by spam filters (and a syntax for same). I have implementation experience with this from bogofilter. Are there any other things that ought to go in there? -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 05:57:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01988 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxM5-0002av-Nh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQAv9xN009967 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxM5-0002ag-DI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:09 -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 FAA01936 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxM1-0003XX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxM1-0003XU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxM1-0002WW-7z; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:57:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxLZ-0002UL-8E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:56:37 -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 FAA01907 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxLV-0003Wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:56:33 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxLU-0003Ww-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:56:32 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOxLV-0003Z8-Rh; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:56:33 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031126105005.GB11242@thyrsus.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 10:56:33 +0000 Status: O > > Can you provide the number of the bill, date of passage, or a pointer > to an on-line copy? > -- > Eric S. Raymond > > Sorry, http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 06:23:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02556 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxlL-0003uD-3f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQBNFXN015007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxlK-0003ty-Qi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:14 -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 GAA02542 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxlG-0003qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxlG-0003qv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxl9-0003rf-L7; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:23:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxkZ-0003pF-LW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:22:27 -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 GAA02534 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxkV-0003qm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:22:23 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxkV-0003qj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:22:23 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOxkW-0000la-M3; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:22:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:22:24 +0000 Status: O > > Are there any other things that ought to go in there? Yep, the ADV convention, or something else might be required in the *Subject*. I'd guess that this might need to be extensible, for other purposes, e.g. labelling "adult" material. so if you have a label "FOO" you might need to be able to form FOO.[ADV].XXX Come see my enormous jugs FOO.[ADV] Come see my enormous jugs at Al's Ceramics Barn! FOO.XXX UNPR1NT4BLE F1LTH or something? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 06:38:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02954 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxzk-0004MI-NG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQBc8OG016740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxzk-0004Lv-2i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:08 -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 GAA02941 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxzf-00040o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxzf-00040l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxzd-0004H7-NE; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOxz5-0004Ad-Cx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:27 -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 GAA02923 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxz1-00040P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:23 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOxz0-00040M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:22 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQBbOGU025313; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:24 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQBbOhC011521; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:24 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQBbO8p011519; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:24 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126113724.GA11513@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:37:24 -0500 Status: O Jon Kyme : > so if you have a label "FOO" you might need to be able to form > FOO.[ADV].XXX Come see my enormous jugs > FOO.[ADV] Come see my enormous jugs at Al's Ceramics Barn! > FOO.XXX UNPR1NT4BLE F1LTH Let's keep it simple. Most people simply want to be able to can *all* advertising email. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 07:15:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03795 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZf-0005Z8-2U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQCFEOX021382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZe-0005Yi-LT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:14 -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 HAA03775 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZe-0004Pw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZd-0004Ps-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZS-0005U8-BT; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZO-0005Tj-6q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:58 -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 HAA03770 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZN-0004Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:57 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZM-0004PU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:57 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-247.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.247]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 028F362387; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:44:53 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: , "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:44:09 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O any labelling system would require some sort of classification a broad "ADV" would not be sufficient because it does not identify what sort of advertisement was contained I may not want adverts about womans personal items but I might want an advert about carpentry tools so a blanket "adv" would force me to accept all mail and then try to filter on content as is the status quo Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 07:15:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03811 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZf-0005Z9-2o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQCFFaQ021385 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZe-0005Yj-NF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:14 -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 HAA03776 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZe-0004Pz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZd-0004Pt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZS-0005UJ-RR; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyZO-0005Ti-6N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:58 -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 HAA03767 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZN-0004Pg-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:57 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyZM-0004PT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:14:56 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-247.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.247]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id BA25A609E2; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:44:49 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Chris" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC44D52.8050208@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:44:06 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > I am kind of lost here. The current infrastructure does not require > "pull", your will require "pull". Even though its running on top of SMTP > and POP3, nevertheless you will require all clients to do "pull" in > order to get email. This looks to me as a major change. pop3 is unchanged the sytem does not alter pop3 at all The difference is in the host server(s) (which may happen to be on the recipients/senders machine) for example one possible method... The sender sends a "pull request" this can be in the form of shortened e-mail no body just headers the recipients host smtp server accepts that mail as it does now but instead of queueing it for collection it processes the request and chooses to accept or deny. it then sends an accept or deny message to the remote senders machine (smtp server) the accept message has a onetime identifier which the remote senders server attaches to the email and then forwards it to the recipients smtp server which checks the identifier and queues it for collection (pop3) as normal So apart from a couple of extra commands there is little change to the current system and it is compatible with the existing infrastructure. At some future point e-mails sent without a properly formatted pull message get returned as not accepted using standard failure codes and an additional explanation message. > > > > What about the users that force the email to be pulled, just like the > users who click on links in spam today? > Doesn't really apply if the email has made it to the users machine it has passed all initial tests which is mainly that the source can be traced. again spam is in the eye of the beholder. if the recipient chooses to accept the email then so be it. Chris > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 07:33:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04375 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyr8-0006lB-1R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQCXIZE025979 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyr7-0006kw-S4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:17 -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 HAA04359 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyr7-0004h2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyr6-0004gz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyqr-0006iC-Gn; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOyqL-0006dn-Ul for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:32:29 -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 HAA04326 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:32:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyqL-0004gU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:32:29 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOyqK-0004gR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:32:28 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-247.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.247]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id EC11063D5E; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:02:25 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: , "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031126113724.GA11513@thyrsus.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:01:42 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > Let's keep it simple. Most people simply want to be able to can > *all* advertising email. > -- actually no they don't a lot of people opt in to various websites for various reasons if all "advertising" had to be labelled as such wanted e-mail would be thrown out with the trash scattergun approaches tend to shoot the wrong people. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 08:02:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05448 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzJ4-0008WK-4f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQD2AVK032746 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzJ3-0008W5-VE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:10 -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 IAA05441 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzJ3-00059Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzJ2-00059V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzIu-0008Ti-Qj; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzIW-0008ST-6O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:36 -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 IAA05429 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzIV-00057C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:35 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzIU-000579-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:34 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQD1YGU025991; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:34 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQD1YhC015434; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:34 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQD1Y5a015432; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:34 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Chris Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:01:34 -0500 Status: O Chris : > so a blanket "adv" would force me to accept all mail and then try to > filter on content as is the status quo A blanket advertising label is all that CAN-SPAM requires (I have just read it). Any more elaborate scheme would probably not be enforceable under the Act. Besides, designing a *classification* system for commercial email would be a rathole. Endless arguments about how to define the categories. Fudging by the marketeers. Don't go there. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 08:04:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05492 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzKu-0000Gg-5i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQD44DC001024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzKu-0000GR-0C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:04 -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 IAA05478 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:03:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzKt-0005AH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzKs-0005AE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzKr-0000Dr-Le; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzJz-0000Bw-BT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:03:07 -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 IAA05465 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzJy-00059q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:03:06 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzJy-00059n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:03:06 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AOzJx-0004Mc-Dc; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "Chris" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:05 +0000 Status: O > any labelling system would require some sort of classification > > I'm inclined to agree. labelling should best support classification (or multiple/extended labels), because an application may require it. Of course a specification can be revised as required, but maybe something that is extensible from the start is better. The requirements are liable to be highly variable and various over time / different jurisdictions / etc. A very simple approach may not be the best in these circumstances. It can't be hard to spec a way of forming these labels which is extensible - maybe I'll have a go. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 08:18:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05871 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzYW-0001Fz-U8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQDI85V004832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzYW-0001Fr-G6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:08 -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 IAA05849 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzYV-0005MP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzYV-0005MK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzYO-0001Az-Rs; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzYF-0001AX-HO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:17:51 -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 IAA05830 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzYE-0005Lq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:17:50 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzYE-0005LY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:17:50 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2003 05:16:50 -0800 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-59.cisco.com [10.21.112.59]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAQDHGrY000643; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:17:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031126051345.03c57df0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Chris" From: Mark Baugher Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , In-Reply-To: References: <3FC41901.9060809@solidmatrix.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, 26 Nov 2003 05:17:14 -0800 Status: O http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt calls the idea of replacing smtp "appealing" for a number of reasons. I think this long-range idea is within the scope of this group. In fact, I recall that there is some work to evaluate smtp security in light of other types of systems. So, it seems that this idea should not be taken out and shot but should be considered along with other long-range approaches to electronic mail. Mark At 08:42 PM 11/25/2003, Chris wrote: > > > > However, the single overriding concern about such system is deployment. > > This is the same problem that faces anyone who wants to replace SMTP > > with a different protocol, push or pull, such as the various AMTP > > variants discussed earlier on. Majority of folks think that complete > > replacement of today's SMTP infrastructure would take too long and be > > too costly, while easier and almost as effective solutions exist. > > > >This is one of the main reasons I am for a "pull" system based on smtp >rfc821 >it is do-able, requires limited software replacement and can be achieved in >a reasonable time frame (2yrs?) > >If software vendors (and I agree with Phill, this is an *if*) get on board >it can be a part of their next "upgrade" > >it does not require any fundamental change to the system > >just some additional commands on top of the already functioning system > >Remember my version does not require the POP client to do any work. >All work is done by the SMTP hosts. >the recipient (client) does not pull the messages the smtp host does that. > >the POP client e.g. ms outlook needs no modification > >For an example on the uptake of similar technology, how many server >implementations still use http/1.0? > >Pull retains the "openness" of the current system. but ultimately flips the >coin from push to pull >and delivers the choice to the recipient not the sender. > >Spammers can still spam to their hearts content. > >if they follow the rules their mail will get delivered to those who want it. > >if they don't follow the rules they receive a reminder of what the rules are >(message denied). > >if they continue to cause problems legislators can use the "class" >header/command as the basis for drafting laws designed to stop mail abuse. > >e.g. porn vendors sending unsolicited e-mail that ends up in childrens mail >boxes > >So an SMTP PULL server configured for a child would have a "class/adult deny >all" setting >if the sender classifies the pornographic email as a "class/general" then it >could be actioned and a conviction sought and got. > > > > > > The problem with SMTP is not unique to that protocol itself, it is also > > found in other protocols and the structure of the Net itself - every > > user on the Net is inherently trusted by the network. That allows spam, > > trojans, viruses, DDOS attacks, etc. That problem need to be though > > through not just for spam, but for the Internet as whole. > > > >This is most definately true. > > >Chris > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing 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 Nov 26 08:39:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06434 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzst-0002UO-70 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQDdBOM009562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzss-0002U9-Vp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:11 -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 IAA06428 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzsr-0005bp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzsr-0005bm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzsj-0002Ru-Js; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOzs3-0002Qo-RJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:38:19 -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 IAA06420 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:38:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOzs2-0005bQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:38:18 -0500 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 1AOzs2-0005bM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:38:18 -0500 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 hAQDiDCA087834; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:44:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200311261344.hAQDiDCA087834@nic-naa.net> To: "Jon Kyme" cc: "Chris" , "ASRG" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:05 GMT." From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:44:13 -0500 Status: O Jon, I suggest you take a look at some prior work with PICS, and P3P. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 08:48:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06679 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP01U-0002oO-50 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQDm4Lw010802 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP01T-0002o9-Vr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:04 -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 IAA06649 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP01S-0005iE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP01S-0005iB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP01R-0002kO-FX; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP01C-0002jm-2K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:47:46 -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 IAA06632 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:47:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP01A-0005ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:47:44 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP01A-0005hl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:47:44 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP01A-0005k3-0t; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:47:44 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311261344.hAQDiDCA087834@nic-naa.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 13:47:44 +0000 Status: O > Jon, > > > I suggest you take a look at some prior work with PICS, and P3P. > > Eric > > They're W3C things, right? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 08:51:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06738 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP04Q-00030N-Aj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQDp6Ap011545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP04Q-000307-0W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:06 -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 IAA06724 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP04O-0005jk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP04O-0005jh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP04L-0002wK-RF; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP03f-0002vO-TK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:19 -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 IAA06710 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP03e-0005jO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:18 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP03d-0005jL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQDoHGU026408 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQDoHhC015728 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQDoHZx015724; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "ASRG" Subject: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 -0500 Status: O Anti Spam Research Group Eric Raymond Internet-Draft Open Source Initiative Expires: XXXX XX, 2004 Nov 26 2003 Requirements for Advertising and Bulk Email Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on XXXX XX, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This Internet-Draft describes standards for labeling of commercial and bulk email. 1. Introduction The "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003" [CAN-SPAM] reads in part (11.2): The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan. The IETF accepts this as direction to develop a technical recommendation for requirements on commercial email that will support the purposes of the Act. 2. Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. For purposes of this RFC, "commercial email" is email sent for the purpose of advertising a product or service, but not including transactional or relationship messages. See CAN-SPAM Section 3.2. For purposes of this RFC, "bulk email" is mail duplicated to a list of one hundred (100) or more recipients in substantially identical form; that is, such that the variations do not affect the meaning of the mail as it is read by a human being. For purposes of this RFC, "porn email" is mail which either contains pornographic content or which offers access to such material. In U.S. jurisdictions, the relevant legal definition is section 2256 of title 18, United States Code. 3 Labeling methods 3.1 The ADV convention Commercial email from reputable firms is often labeled with the prefix "ADV:" in the Subject header. This has the advantage of being readily visible, because effectively all mail readers display mail subject lines in their summary views. It has the disadvantage that, because of the way many mailreaders generate reply subject lines, the label may persist in replies where it is not appropriate, 3.2 The Keywords header The Keywords header, described in [RFC822], contains keywords describing the content of the mail. Keywords are separated by whitespace and/or commas. For purposes of conformance to the requirements of CAN-SPAM, the following keywords are defined: advertising Applicable to any commercial email bulk Applicable to any bulk email porn Applicable to any porn email 4. Opt-out support The List-Unsubscribe header, defined in [RFC2369], supports list unsubscription via mechanisms including: (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending mail to it unsubscribes the sender. (b) a URL to a page where the user may enter an address to be unsubscribed. The presence of these mechanisms fulfills the requirements of CAN-SPAM 5.3. 5. Accountability and transparency The List-Owner header, defined in [RFC2369], specifies a responsible list administrator to cope with situations in whicch the List-Unsubscribe mechanisms are inadequate or temporarily faulty. The List-Owner header is optional and may be omitted if the responsible person is the postmaster of the originating system. 6. Conformance requirements These conformance requirements directly address the legal requirements of [CAN-SPAM], and will constitute the Internet Engineering Task Force's recommendation to the Federal Trade Commission as solicited in section 11.2. Commercial electronic mail MUST be labeled using at least one of either the ADV: Subject-line prefix or the token "advertising" in a Keywords header. Bulk email MAY be labeled with the token "bulk" in a Keywords header. Commercial bulk email MUST be so labeled. Porn email MAY be labeled with the token "porn" in a Keywords header. Commercial porn email MUST be so labeled. Commercial bulk email MUST include a List-Unsubscribe header implementing the RFC2369 proposal. Commercial bulk email SHOULD, if the responsible sender is not the postmaster of the originating system, include a List-Owner header implementing the RFC2369 proposal. 7. Rationale In the interests of making adoption as rapid and painless as possible, this RFC extends and codifies existing practice rather than inventing new mechanisms. The temptation to design a classification system for advertising, permitting more exact labeling than "ADV:", is strong. However, no such elaborate system is required by [CAN-SPAM], and were we to invent one it might in fact be unenforceable under the Act. Furthermore, the boundaries of such a system would be a subject of endless dispute, both during design and after implementation. The conformance requirements have been designed to have minimal impact on individual mail senders, maximal impact on commercial bulk mailers. 6. References [CAN-SPAM] "An Act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet". S.877, passed the House on 21 Nov 2003. [RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level"; Scott Bradner. [RFC2822] "RFC 2822 - Internet Message Format"; Peter Resnick (Editor). [RFC2369] "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields"; Joshua D. Baer & Grant Neufeld. Authors' Addresses Eric S. Raymond Open Source Initiative 6 Karen Drive, Malvern PA 19355 US EMail: esr@thyrsus.com URI: http://www.catb.org/ Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgements Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. -- Eric S. Raymond Rapists just *love* unarmed women. And the politicians who disarm them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:16:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07514 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0Sy-0004GM-5V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEGSwt016380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0Sx-0004G3-U9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:27 -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 JAA07503 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0Sw-00062N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0Sv-00062B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0SW-0004BW-MW; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0S2-0004Aq-2t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:30 -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 JAA07483 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0S0-00061l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:28 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0Rz-00061i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:28 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP0Rz-0003SK-2v for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:15:27 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311261344.hAQDiDCA087834@nic-naa.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 14:15:27 +0000 Status: O it's worth noting some of the likely constraints: The label should be short The label should be near (at) the start of the subject The label shouldn't be utterly opaque to the non-technical reader. The established use of the Subject should be preserved. I believe it would be a VERY BAD idea for us get into the particulars of labels, although we might suggest some high level options. I think we might usefully suggest a way of composing labels that would satisfy the above constraints -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:26:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07807 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0cI-0004rd-0H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEQ5oP018691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0cH-0004rO-R7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:05 -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 JAA07797 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0cG-0006Ac-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0cF-0006AZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0cD-0004p5-9B; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0ba-0004mu-Qk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:23 -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 JAA07794 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0bY-0006AT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:20 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0bY-0006AQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:20 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQEPHxP006090; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:17 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113219@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:16 -0800 Status: O > > > there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement > > > Implementation is relativally simple > > > > Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major > > providers of > > email infrastructure? > > No of course not but that does not mean that it cannot happen On the contrary, unless you can persuade Sendmail, Microsoft, Lotus to take notice of you your project is dead on arrival. > this is a research group. we should research and then make > recommendations This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. The scope is control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible. You don't seem to be very aware of IETF history, but backwards compatibility and support for legacy systems has a huge premium. Forget persuading Microsoft, you are not going to persuade the IESG the need for a discontinuous change. IF the industry did decide to change the email protocol in a fundamental way any new protocol would be based on the Web Services framework. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:36:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08139 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0m1-0005i4-7Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEa9qh021947 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0m0-0005hu-Pe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:08 -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 JAA08134 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0ly-0006Jb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0ly-0006JY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0lt-0005db-IS; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0lZ-0005co-Sk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:35:41 -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 JAA08108 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0lY-0006J7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:35:40 -0500 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 1AP0lX-0006J4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:35:39 -0500 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 hAQEfaCA088061; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:41:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200311261441.hAQEfaCA088061@nic-naa.net> To: "Jon Kyme" cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" , "ASRG" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:47:44 GMT." From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:41:36 -0500 Status: O Yup. PICS: BNF grammer, labellist, MIME type application/pics-labels & HTTP methods P3P: XML grammer, schema, WKL & HTTP methods Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:37:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08186 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0mu-0005r4-26 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEb388022488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0mt-0005qb-Gg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:03 -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 JAA08167 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0mr-0006K8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0mr-0006K5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0ms-0005oE-6N; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:37:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0mm-0005ng-Rt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:56 -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 JAA08161 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0ml-0006Ju-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:55 -0500 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 1AP0mk-0006Jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:54 -0500 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 hAQEgpCA088104; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:42:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> To: "Eric S. Raymond" cc: "ASRG" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:50:17 EST." <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:42:51 -0500 Status: O Eric, i18n/l10n. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:46:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08532 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0vm-0006oI-J0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEkEi4026171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0vm-0006o2-DB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:14 -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 JAA08511 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0vk-0006Pc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0vk-0006PX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0vZ-0006jP-OB; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0vP-0006iu-MY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:51 -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 JAA08504 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0vN-0006PL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:49 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0vN-0006PH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:49 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEjlGU026831; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:47 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEjlhC025325; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:47 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEjk13025314; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:46 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:46 -0500 Status: O Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine : > Eric, > > i18n/l10n. > > Eric I thought about it. Yes, the keywords and ADV are English. There are 4, count 'em 4 tokens; with a vocabulary that small, the benefits of internationalization are extremely dubious compared to the added complexity. I'll add a 'graph about this to the Rationale. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:48:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08663 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0xa-00070E-EF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEm4Oh026918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0xX-0006zq-9D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:03 -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 JAA08634 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0xV-0006U4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0xU-0006Ty-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0xU-0006vj-Nr; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0wy-0006uQ-Av for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:47:28 -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 JAA08576 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0ww-0006Sw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:47:26 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0wv-0006Sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:47:25 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQElOqm023400; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:47:24 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) 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, 26 Nov 2003 06:47:24 -0800 Status: O > Jon, > > I suggest you take a look at some prior work with PICS, and P3P. I am not sure that that will be usefull. I was the person who originally proposed the ultra-extensibility mechanism in PICS and I did it as a wrecking ammendment. The political situation was that there was an unholy alliance between the Stalinist wing of the Marxist/Feminist left (Dworkin/Mackinon) and the Religious Right. Both factions wanted to establish an Internet censorship board so that they could have a forum to exercise influence in. PICS allows anyone to define their own censorship scheme. Each censorship scheme is identified by a URI identifier and may have multiple dimensions (sex, violence, rudeness, political alignment) each of which is scored on a scale. The idea of multiple censorship schemes was to ensure that there was no single internet censorship board. This destroyed the reason for the alliance between the authoritarian right and left factions and with it a good deal of the support for the bill. So no, you do NOT want to use PICS for this. You will also find that the documents compiled by the technical committee are uniformly evasive on their purpose. They hide behind euphemisms rather than admit what they are doing. What you want for the purpose of the bill is a single uniform classification scale. You do not want every spammer defining their own. I think the bill needs to be read carefully, did the ADV convention ever make it to Internet standard? I suspect it was experimental. There are various types of commercial material: 1) Advert, Unsolicited, no prior business relationship, cold calling 2) Advert, Prior business relationship 3) Advert, Solicited, 4) Account, presumably solicited 5) Report of transaction, invoice etc. The point being that it is vital to allow types 4 and 5 through and may be pretty important to allow type 3 through. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:49:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08736 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0yc-0007DD-Ad for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEnAXE027716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0yc-0007Cx-0o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:10 -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 JAA08706 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0yZ-0006VQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0yZ-0006VN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0yU-00079F-1B; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP0yS-00078y-M2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:49:00 -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 JAA08698 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP0yQ-0006VB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:58 -0500 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 1AP0yO-0006UX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:48:57 -0500 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 hAQEsNCA088191; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200311261454.hAQEsNCA088191@nic-naa.net> To: esr@thyrsus.com cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:46 EST." <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:23 -0500 Status: O We differ. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:51:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08845 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP10X-0007Pt-4d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEp9il028509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP10W-0007Pk-S7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:08 -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 JAA08824 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP10U-0006XK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP10U-0006XH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP10Q-0007N1-Qw; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP10A-0007MO-Cq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:50:46 -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 JAA08810 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:50:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP108-0006Wv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:50:44 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP107-0006Ws-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:50:43 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQEofqm024102; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:50:41 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321B@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'esr@thyrsus.com'" , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC 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, 26 Nov 2003 06:50:41 -0800 Status: O If keywords are in a header then it really does not matter what language they are in. If we are encoding keywords into subject lines the result is liable to be fragile. But even here there is a precedent, RE, FWD, WAS BTW note that PICS and P3P are probably the least successful web protocols deployment wise. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric S. Raymond [mailto:esr@thyrsus.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:46 AM > To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > Cc: Eric S. Raymond; ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations > for the FTC > > > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine : > > Eric, > > > > i18n/l10n. > > > > Eric > > I thought about it. > > Yes, the keywords and ADV are English. There are 4, count > 'em 4 tokens; > with a vocabulary that small, the benefits of > internationalization are > extremely dubious compared to the added complexity. > > I'll add a 'graph about this to the Rationale. > -- > Eric S. Raymond > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 26 09:54:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08996 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP13M-0007gL-Ki for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEs4mD029523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP13M-0007g6-Ff for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:04 -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 JAA08971 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP13K-0006aJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP13K-0006aG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP13J-0007c8-5I; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP12i-0007as-8F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:53:24 -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 JAA08955 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP12g-0006Zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:53:22 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP12f-0006Zj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:53:21 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQErKxO013906; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:53:20 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321C@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) 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, 26 Nov 2003 06:53:20 -0800 Status: O > Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? > If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? By international standards for legislation this is a fairly whacky way to go about things. The bill seems to assume that there is only one email standard and will continue to be forever... In effect the IETF is suddenly given power to make secondary legislation. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:55:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09046 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP14J-0007uJ-Oa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEt322030389 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP14J-0007u3-Ex for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:03 -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 JAA09039 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP14H-0006bd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP14H-0006bV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP14H-0007q3-Gl; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:55:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP13o-0007lG-Df for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:32 -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 JAA08979 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP13m-0006ae-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:30 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP13l-0006ab-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:30 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEsTGU026919 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:29 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEsThC032170 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:29 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEsTRr032166; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.com> From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: ASRG Subject: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:54:29 -0500 Status: O --- spamlabel.txt 2003/11/26 13:45:49 1.1 +++ spamlabel.txt 2003/11/26 14:50:53 @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan. - The IETF accepts this as direction to develop a technical + The IETF accepts this as a request to develop a technical recommendation for requirements on commercial email that will support the purposes of the Act. @@ -183,6 +183,9 @@ impact on individual mail senders, maximal impact on commercial bulk mailers. + Internationalization was considered. With a total inventory of + four tokens, the benefits seem small and the added complexity + of a multilingual vocabulary rather pointless. 6. References -- Eric S. Raymond Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon -- so long as there is no answer to it -- gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell, "You and the Atom Bomb", 1945 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 09:59:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09133 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP18H-0008BD-SY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEx9u8031437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP18H-0008Ay-LQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:09 -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 JAA09124 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP18F-0006dt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP18F-0006dq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP189-000875-Nr; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP17j-00086a-3O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:35 -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 JAA09109 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP17h-0006dY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:33 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP17g-0006dV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:32 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEwWGU026945; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:32 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQEwWhC002347; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:32 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQEwVTt002345; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:31 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126145831.GB21332@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:31 -0500 Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip : > I think the bill needs to be read carefully, did the ADV convention ever > make it to Internet standard? I suspect it was experimental. I have read the bill carefully. > There are various types of commercial material: > > 1) Advert, Unsolicited, no prior business relationship, cold calling > 2) Advert, Prior business relationship > 3) Advert, Solicited, > 4) Account, presumably solicited > 5) Report of transaction, invoice etc. > > The point being that it is vital to allow types 4 and 5 through and may be > pretty important to allow type 3 through. Yes. These are the categories CAN-SPAM dsecribes as "transactional and relationship" mail. They are explicitly exempted from the labeling requirement. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:04:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09518 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1D4-0008Uv-6F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQF46dq032656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1D3-0008ST-Iu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:05 -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 KAA09448 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1D1-0006lI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1D0-0006lC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Cz-0008NV-Ik; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1CW-0008Mi-DI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:32 -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 KAA09395 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1CU-0006kR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:30 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1CT-0006kO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:30 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP1CT-0005uB-LW for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:03:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321C@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 15:03:29 +0000 Status: O > >In effect the IETF is suddenly given power to make secondary legislation. > > It seems kind of sensible (unusual for legislators, sure) for the US regulator to be directed to consider international standardisation efforts when coming up with a plan for new regulations. It must be some kind of evil double-bluff. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:11:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10523 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Jr-0000ya-8e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFB7Oc003746 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Jr-0000yL-4S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:07 -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 KAA10462 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Jp-0006sQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Jo-0006sN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Jm-0000uW-43; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1JT-0000uE-15 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:10:43 -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 KAA10420 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1JQ-0006sE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:10:40 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1JQ-0006sB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:10:40 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP1JP-0007PY-Pe; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:10:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal To: "Eric S. Raymond" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 15:10:39 +0000 Status: O > + Internationalization was considered. With a total inventory of > + four tokens, the benefits seem small and the added complexity > + of a multilingual vocabulary rather pointless. > or one could provide for other equivalent and new tokens to be registered somewhere... or in updates to the document. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:16:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11150 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Of-0001AA-93 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFG5M6004464 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Of-00019v-3U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -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 KAA11077 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Oc-0006wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Oc-0006wo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Oc-00017b-Vv; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1OJ-00017A-BX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:43 -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 KAA11023 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1OC-0006wV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:36 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1OB-0006wS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:35 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFFZGU027086; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:35 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFFZhC016193; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:35 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFFZMc016191; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:35 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric S. Raymond'" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal Message-ID: <20031126151535.GA13859@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:15:35 -0500 Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip : > I took a look at the RFCs, It does not appear to be the case that the ADV > mechanism ever made it into an RFC. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2635.txt?number=2635 > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2505.txt?number=2505 > > Do Congress think they are pointing to an existing document here? Probably not. But I don't see that it matters, either, ADV: is the closest thing to an established convention there is -- the drafters of CAN-SPAM have probably (a) seen it and (b) don't really care whether it's already in an RFC or not. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:17:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11320 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Pd-0001Ks-Rg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFH5IC005128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Pd-0001JF-LI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:05 -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 KAA11231 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Pb-0006zd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Pb-0006za-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Pa-0001GC-CM; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1PU-0001Fj-QR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:56 -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 KAA11201 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1PS-0006zR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:54 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1PS-0006zO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:54 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFGrGU027116; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:53 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFGrhC017326; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:53 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFGrIu017324; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:53 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jon Kyme Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal Message-ID: <20031126151653.GB13859@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:16:53 -0500 Status: O Jon Kyme : > > + Internationalization was considered. With a total inventory of > > + four tokens, the benefits seem small and the added complexity > > + of a multilingual vocabulary rather pointless. > > > > or one could provide for other equivalent and new tokens to be registered > somewhere... or in updates to the document. Trouble is, every time you add a token, that's a change request for every MUA and filter program in the world. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:19:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11505 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1RZ-0001kV-0Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFJ4W8006717 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1RY-0001kG-QF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:04 -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 KAA11470 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1RW-00073A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1RW-000737-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1RW-0001hA-56; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1RL-0001g8-2S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:51 -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 KAA11455 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1RI-00072q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:48 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1RI-00072m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:48 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQFIkxO022122; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:18:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:18:46 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'esr@thyrsus.com'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) 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, 26 Nov 2003 07:18:40 -0800 Status: O > Yes. These are the categories CAN-SPAM dsecribes as > "transactional and > relationship" mail. They are explicitly exempted from the labeling > requirement. What I am thinking of here is the boundaries between the categories. I think there is an element of subjectivity that can enter and that as a result a binary statement ADV or not is not going to be very helpful. What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the transactional and permission based message empirically. So a spam filter knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders authorized for that express purpose. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:20:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11551 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1SZ-0001xV-TG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFK7sB007523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1SX-0001wj-5o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:05 -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 KAA11532 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1SU-00074G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1ST-00074B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1ST-0001tS-E7; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Rf-0001m4-29 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:11 -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 KAA11474 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Rc-00073I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:08 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1Rc-00073D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:08 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hAQFJ4Oj003193 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:04 -0500 Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFJ4wF003173; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:04 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: "Eric S. Raymond" cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-Reply-To: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 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, 26 Nov 2003 10:19:03 -0500 (EST) Status: O On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Anti Spam Research Group Eric Raymond > Internet-Draft Open Source Initiative > Expires: XXXX XX, 2004 Nov 26 2003 > > 4. Opt-out support > > The List-Unsubscribe header, defined in [RFC2369], supports list > unsubscription via mechanisms including: > > (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending > mail to it unsubscribes the sender. > > (b) a URL to a page where the user may enter an > address to be unsubscribed. > > The presence of these mechanisms fulfills the requirements of > CAN-SPAM 5.3. Have any MUAs expressed plans to support (a)? Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:32:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12309 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1eB-0002bf-Va for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFW7gK010015 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1eB-0002bS-RG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:07 -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 KAA12261 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1e9-0007Je-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1e9-0007Jb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1e4-0002XW-Uw; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1dF-0002Uf-4Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:09 -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 KAA11963 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1dC-0007Dj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.212]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1dB-0007CW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:31:05 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAQFUSK08614 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:30:28 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AP1cY-0000jE-00 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:30:26 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311270231.41117.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, 27 Nov 2003 02:31:41 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Comment on section 3.2 The Keywords header. As I understand it, there is no precedent for giving specific keywords specific meanings in this context. One could therefore object that this proposal is not properly backwards compatible with existing practice, because existing use of these keywords may not carry the specific meaning used here. Not that I've seen the "keywords" field used in practice, or used it myself outside of obscure humour value in Usenet posts many years ago. But hey -- devil's advocate. I see two possible ways around this. One is to define a specific new field; the other is to make the keywords a bit more specific. Obviously Eric was attempting to avoid defining new fields, and that's a fair tack, but defining a new field is an option. To make the keywords more specific, we could have "can-spam-advertising" instead of just "advertising" (using "can-spam-" as a namespace of sorts), to reduce the plausibility that it will conflict with any existing usage. On the matter of internationalisation, I would say that these are meant primarily to be machine-readable tokens. The MUA can translate the tokens into an appropriate natural language description or icon, etc. As an aside, I can see the mere presence of the "keywords" field becoming a major touchstone for spam if this proposal is adopted. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:34:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12457 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1g4-0002z0-A8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFY4iU011463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1g3-0002yo-QW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:03 -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 KAA12434 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1g1-0007MM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1g1-0007MJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1g1-0002wa-Pq; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1fg-0002sX-R8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:40 -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 KAA12405 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1fe-0007Lm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:38 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1fd-0007Lj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFXbGU027270; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFXbhC029233; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFXbax029231; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126153337.GA23766@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500 Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip : > What I am thinking of here is the boundaries between the categories. I think > there is an element of subjectivity that can enter and that as a result a > binary statement ADV or not is not going to be very helpful. Way better than nothing -- especially in combination with "Keyword: bulk" Bear in mind the real purpose of this bill, which is to make it legally possible to nail and jail the Viagra scammers and their ilk simply based on the fact that they're forging addresses etc. All the keyword-system design in the world won't have any impact on this goal, because the crooks' incentives drive them to ignore the entire keyword system. They won't even use the *simple* keywords I've proposed, much less any complicated one. > What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the > transactional and permission based message empirically. So a spam filter > knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders > authorized for that express purpose. You are the person who, in other contexts, is telling people not to try to reinvent the world to a grand plan. Take your own advice! -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:36:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12656 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1i0-0003MO-IN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFa4tc012910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1i0-0003M9-Cu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:04 -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 KAA12637 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1hy-0007RS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1hx-0007RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1hx-0003JT-2i; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1h1-00039P-NK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:35:03 -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 KAA12494 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1gz-0007Ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:35:01 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1gy-0007NY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:35:00 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFZ0GU027290; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:35:00 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFYxhC030451; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:59 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFYxHm030449; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:59 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126153459.GB23766@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:34:59 -0500 Status: O Daniel Feenberg : > > (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending > > mail to it unsubscribes the sender. > Have any MUAs expressed plans to support (a)? What, with an "unsubscrube" button? Not that I know of. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:44:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13276 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1pm-00046l-C1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFi66U015780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1pm-00046R-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:06 -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 KAA13272 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1pj-0007ea-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1pj-0007eX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1pg-00042g-PF; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1pf-00042O-25 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:59 -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 KAA13261 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1pc-0007eI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:56 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1pb-0007eC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:55 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFhtGU027366; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:55 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQFhthC005797; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:55 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQFht3h005795; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:55 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:55 -0500 Status: O Brett Watson : > Not that I've seen the "keywords" field used in practice, or used it myself > outside of obscure humour value in Usenet posts many years ago. But hey -- > devil's advocate. A fair point to raise. But I did consider it...and concluded that Keywords is generally unused precisely *because* there are no global conventions about ketyword meanings. > I see two possible ways around this. One is to define a specific new > field; the other is to make the keywords a bit more > specific. Obviously Eric was attempting to avoid defining new > fields, and that's a fair tack, but defining a new field is an > option. To make the keywords more specific, we could have > "can-spam-advertising" instead of just "advertising" (using > "can-spam-" as a namespace of sorts), to reduce the plausibility > that it will conflict with any existing usage. I considered this, too -- in my first draft, it was "Content-keyword". Since Keywords is both registered and unused, going with it seemed liike the better approach. But I'm not strongly attached to this; my mind could be changed. > On the matter of internationalisation, I would say that these are meant > primarily to be machine-readable tokens. The MUA can translate the tokens > into an appropriate natural language description or icon, etc. That was my thinking, too; I should have mentioned it in the rationale. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 10:51:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09519 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1D4-0008Uw-6o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQF46iS032652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1D3-0008St-Jt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:05 -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 KAA09449 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1D1-0006lJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1D0-0006lD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1Cz-0008N9-1w; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP1C7-0008MO-J7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:07 -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 KAA09380 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:02:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1C5-0006k7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:05 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP1C4-0006k4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:05 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQF31xO016851; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:03:00 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric S. Raymond'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal 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, 26 Nov 2003 07:03:00 -0800 Status: O I took a look at the RFCs, It does not appear to be the case that the ADV mechanism ever made it into an RFC. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2635.txt?number=2635 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2505.txt?number=2505 Do Congress think they are pointing to an existing document here? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:11:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14745 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2GA-0005bl-Ob for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGBMUG021550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2GA-0005bU-DQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:22 -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 LAA14691 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2G7-0000PM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2G7-0000PJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2Fq-0005X8-17; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2Fj-0005WQ-FM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:10:55 -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 LAA14657 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2Fg-0000Ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:10:52 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2Fg-0000Ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:10:52 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP2Ff-0004A6-Nn; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:10:51 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC To: "Daniel Feenberg" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 26 Nov 2003 16:10:51 +0000 Status: O > > > > (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending > > mail to it unsubscribes the sender. > > > > (b) a URL to a page where the user may enter an > > address to be unsubscribed. > > > Have any MUAs expressed plans to support (a)? pine already does. A bit. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:30:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16097 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2YS-0006Ij-32 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGUGHA024218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2YR-0006IW-FY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:15 -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 LAA16067 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2YP-0000sN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2YP-0000sK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2YI-0006GE-J3; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2Y7-0006Ey-2P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:55 -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 LAA16044 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2Y6-0000ri-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:54 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2Y5-0000rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:53 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hAQGTqou024267 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:52 -0500 Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQGTqwF024243; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:52 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: "Eric S. Raymond" cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-Reply-To: <20031126153459.GB23766@thyrsus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:29:51 -0500 (EST) Status: O On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Daniel Feenberg : > > > (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending > > > mail to it unsubscribes the sender. > > > Have any MUAs expressed plans to support (a)? > > What, with an "unsubscrube" button? Not that I know of. > -- > Eric S. Raymond > Recall that most (all?) MUAs that I am suppress headers except Subject:, From: and To:, so that a list-unsubscribe header is invisible to the end user unless they know the secret "display all headers" icon. Few do. Note that when spam receipients forward spam to the FTC, the MUA deletes the headers, so the spammer's lawyer can always reply to an action by the FTC with the claim "list-unsubscribe" was in the headers, and neither the FTC nor the initial complainaint will have any ability to cast doubt on that claim, since MUAs don't save the headers unless "display all headers" is set. Note that under long-standing US law and custom, the lawyer can make this claim without asking the client if it is true or not, and nothing need be sworn. It is still an effective defense unless substantial evidence is provided controverting it. If (a) is to be allowed, MUAs really have to come on board. Not all of them, but at least one in reasonably wide use. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:47:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16736 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2oo-0007eO-JC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGlAwW029400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2on-0007e7-Mp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:09 -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 LAA16697 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2om-00018C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2om-000189-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2oe-0007Zu-Ro; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2oC-0007Yq-E2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:32 -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 LAA16644 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2oB-00015J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:31 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2oA-00015G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 27465 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 11:46:29 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 11:46:29 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 8596 invoked by uid 101); 26 Nov 2003 11:46:29 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:46:29 -0500 Status: O On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:45:46AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine : > > Eric, > > > > i18n/l10n. > > > > Eric > > I thought about it. > > Yes, the keywords and ADV are English. There are 4, count 'em 4 tokens; > with a vocabulary that small, the benefits of internationalization are > extremely dubious compared to the added complexity. Would "ADV" matching be done before or after any charset conversion? Also, would it be worth a sentence somewhere that says that the existence of this I-D (or RFC) in no way endorses any particular approach (I'm specifically thinking of the implication that suddenly opt-out has been sanctified). While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. Yours, -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:50:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16834 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2s0-0007yd-AD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGoSGx030657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2s0-0007yO-4u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:28 -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 LAA16805 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2rz-0001AK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2ry-0001AH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2rx-0007sc-FR; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2qz-0007kB-5z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:49:26 -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 LAA16779 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2qx-00019Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:49:23 -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 1AP2qx-00019M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:49:23 -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 1AP2wH-0003Iw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:54:53 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:36:32 +1030." 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:54:53 -0500 Status: O "Chris" wrote: > The current system is broken because anyone can inject mail into it with no > fear of backtracing There are more issues at stake than that. > Pull won't prevent spam, in fact it is more about giving choice to the > recipient and taking it away from the sender A simple "pull" system may be implemented by layering a notification scheme on top of SMTP. Once the recipient is notified of a message, he sends an ACK with other information, and the sender then knows where to deliver the message. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:51:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16869 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2su-0008Bd-So for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGpOMd031463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2st-0008BO-R4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:23 -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 LAA16857 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2ss-0001Aw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2ss-0001At-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2ss-00083t-0p; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:51:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2sF-00080S-CJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:45 -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 LAA16827 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2sE-0001AY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:42 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2sD-0001AT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:41 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590C5AEBD1 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:34 -0500 Status: O At 1:27 PM +1030 11/26/03, Chris wrote: > >from my understanding (limited), RSS is not e-mail, it has no relationship >to e-mail. and could not be easily implemented as e-mail You need to do more research or maybe just a bit more pondering. The problem of spam is the application of email to a one-to-many model for which it is ill-suited, in part because it has weak permission and authentication infrastructure. Any sender an impose his message on many recipients, and that is also true for your "pull" thumbnail in which there are notifications sent. Those notifications of available messages are as much a problem as actual messages. They are a push from senders who have every incentive to hit as many targets as possible without regard to how many of those targets want it. The relevance of RSS is that it is a better alternative medium for the people currently (mis)using email as a one-way broadcast medium, without any mechanism for anything like spam. Much of the effort and hand-wringing and arguing over spam control mechanisms is really focused on not interfering with truly solicited broadcast email, and RSS gives those senders an alternative which does not have any exposure to side-effects of whatever might be retrofit onto email to stop spam. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 11:53:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16947 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2up-0008Ic-MC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQGrNpe031896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2up-0008IN-IN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:23 -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 LAA16939 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2uo-0001D5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2uo-0001D2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2um-0008GB-Og; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:53:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP2tx-0008FI-30 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 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 LAA16915 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:52:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2tv-0001CP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:52:27 -0500 Received: from mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.65]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP2tv-0001BP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:52:27 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAQGpsF26120 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:51:55 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AP2sP-0003Hz-00; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:50:53 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: esr@thyrsus.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311270351.32299.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, 27 Nov 2003 03:51:32 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:43, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > A fair point to raise. But I did consider it...and concluded that > Keywords is generally unused precisely *because* there are no global > conventions about ketyword meanings. I'd be more inclined to think that they are unused because they're not worth the effort. Keywords don't need global meanings to be useful; merely institutional meanings. You can search RFCs by keyword, for example, and that's modestly useful given that there's a natural (domain-specific) lexicon from which to select kywords. But unless you're explicitly planning on making your email searchable, why would you use keywords? Who knows: maybe some mailing lists do practice good keyword culture. I haven't seen any evidence of it, but I wouldn't presume to call the "keywords" field "unused" on that basis. I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords" field for this purpose, but I think that any special universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent of the field. It also lends the technique an air of generality and extensibility, even if we have no desire to extend it further. Define the keyword in a way that makes it unlikely to clash with natural language at all, although it may contain "advertising" or "bulk" as a part (presumably a suffix). Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:05:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17499 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP36I-0000zR-Dn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQH5EOZ003799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP36I-0000yx-8K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:14 -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 MAA17384 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP36G-0001NA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP36G-0001N4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP368-0000to-UU; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP35t-0000sH-DI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:49 -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 MAA17362 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP35s-0001MU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:48 -0500 Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP35r-0001LJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:47 -0500 Received: from tiny.isode.com (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:07:02 +0000 To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) References: From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: (Bill Cole's message of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:50:34 -0500") Message-ID: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:04:10 +0000 Status: O Bill Cole writes: [...] > The relevance of RSS is that it is a better alternative medium for > the people currently (mis)using email as a one-way broadcast medium, > without any mechanism for anything like spam. Much of the effort and > hand-wringing and arguing over spam control mechanisms is really > focused on not interfering with truly solicited broadcast email, and > RSS gives those senders an alternative which does not have any > exposure to side-effects of whatever might be retrofit onto email to > stop spam. RSS is one, HTTP is another. The web browser that I use (and I presume most others) provides a convenient way to automatically report changes in specific web pages. If current spammers wanted to use better mechanisms, they could just go ahead. The reasons they don't are partly cost, but partly they use email (presumably) *because* it's the wrong medium---like snail bulk mailers, they want their commercial or other messages to look like personal messages so that people are more likely to read them. For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email. Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web page) would be easier to get going. However, I suspect even that market wants their valuable marketing messages to look like email, and so would resist changing. It'll be interesting to see how successful ADV: turns out to be in reality. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:05:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17518 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP36I-0000zF-BN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQH5E87003784 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP36I-0000yw-51 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:14 -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 MAA17382 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP36G-0001N8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP36G-0001N3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP367-0000t7-17; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP35g-0000ra-GJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:36 -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 MAA17332 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:21 -0500 (EST) From: use.signature.asrg@awot.fi Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP35f-0001Lv-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:35 -0500 Received: from bim1.netstar.fi ([194.197.204.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP35e-0001LG-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:04:34 -0500 Message-ID: <49313e5dc8e53c7a4362f55d1676bb643fc4f996@mhs> X-Accept-Language: fi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Reverse DNS and mta server together, registered smtp channel Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:04:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Reverse MX = registered MTA. Same idea like handling nameservers and networks. Registered MTA together = registered smtp channel. Full doc (roaming, dhcp, example, ...) http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/textdb/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx We have tested all our customers smtp connection in last days and it works allways if sender MTA has reverse dns. Reverse domain = in-addr.arpa is also tree, so it must works ... if NS works. That page include also shell script example which search ip's network and so it's simple to make reverse mx query. Reverse is also nice domain-tree . Ofcource this is not full answer of spam, but I think that it's much more easier to communicate with registred nameservers and mta-servers as with all servers ... -jukka- -- ______________________________________________________________________ Karjalan ATK-Awot Oy, Jukka Inkeri Jukka dot Inkeri at Awot dot Fi _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:13:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17777 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Dw-0001rx-Cv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHD81p007179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Dw-0001ri-8w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:08 -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 MAA17767 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Du-0001S1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Du-0001Ry-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Dp-0001o2-Ch; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3DJ-0001nd-2H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:29 -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 MAA17761 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3DH-0001Rl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:27 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3DH-0001Ri-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:27 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHCRGU028124; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:27 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHCQhC026849; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:26 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHCP7L026838; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:25 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:12:25 -0500 Status: O Mark E. Mallett : > Would "ADV" matching be done before or after any charset conversion? Can't be after -- your character set might wind up being one of the wide-character CJK encodings, in which case you can't even write "ADV:". Thanks for pointing out that this means some form of Keyword header is not optional; I will add a note to the Rationale. > Also, would it be worth a sentence somewhere that says that the > existence of this I-D (or RFC) in no way endorses any particular > approach (I'm specifically thinking of the implication that suddenly > opt-out has been sanctified). I don't think we need to go there. In fact, I'd prefer the RFC not talk about policy at all, just specify mechanisms. Lees controversy that way. > While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a > header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message > has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? > I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. I don't know of any standard practice. I had planned to write up such a proposal as part of this draft, but as that is not responsive to the CAN-SPAM request it is really a separate topic. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:15:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17879 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3G1-00027O-BO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHFHSZ008136 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3G0-000279-UA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:16 -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 MAA17853 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Fz-0001Th-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Fy-0001TO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Fm-0001z9-V0; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Ew-0001xF-B0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:14:10 -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 MAA17803 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Eu-0001St-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:14:09 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Eu-0001Sq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:14:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 11830 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 12:14:08 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 12:14:08 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 23191 invoked by uid 101); 26 Nov 2003 12:14:07 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Chris Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: <20031126171407.GG16434@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FC41901.9060809@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:14:07 -0500 Status: O > > Pull retains the "openness" of the current system. but ultimately flips the > coin from push to pull > and delivers the choice to the recipient not the sender. Personally I don't mind hearing about new ideas, but you have to explain why the new ideas are any better or different from the old ones. A free-form debate on a mailing list may or may not do it: reference to a detailed document or description would be better. For instance: - What can "pull" do that "push + sender-system-validation" can not? My imagination may be limited, but I can't think of anything other than that "pull" introduces a whole nother round-trip conversation. (Now, "pull" might be able to have other interesting things layered on top of it, such as issuance of tickets or acceptance criteria or redirections, but that's a more extended conversation). - What can "push + sender-system-verification" do that "pull" can not? Again with my limited imagination, it seems to me that "push+validation" supports other things in the requirements document (such as roaming) a lot better than "pull" -- and also supports multiple sender systems better. (Note that I am not really looking for answers here, just pushing fodder for any potential document.) > > e.g. porn vendors sending unsolicited e-mail that ends up in childrens mail > boxes > > So an SMTP PULL server configured for a child would have a "class/adult deny > all" setting > if the sender classifies the pornographic email as a "class/general" then it > could be actioned and a conviction sought and got. 5xx mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:16:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17949 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3H3-0002GV-6n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHGLxD008696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3H1-0002G0-Ee for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:20 -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 MAA17913 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Gz-0001Uj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Gz-0001UX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Gi-00028E-J1; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Fn-000204-Qu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:03 -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 MAA17832 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:14:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Fm-0001TK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:02 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Fl-0001TG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:01 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHF2GU028162; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:02 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHF1hC028583; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:01 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHF17T028563; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:01 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126171500.GB18612@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> <200311270351.32299.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311270351.32299.famous-asrg@nutters.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:15:01 -0500 Status: O Brett Watson : > I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords" > field for this purpose, but I think that any special > universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given > their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent > of the field. This just pushes the problem back a level. How do you know you won't collide with someone else's namerspace grab? :-) -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:17:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18012 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Hr-0002PJ-Te for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHHBd1009247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Hr-0002P0-M9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:11 -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 MAA17981 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Hq-0001Xr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Hp-0001Xf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3Hg-0002HV-9K; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3H1-0002G1-IF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:21 -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 MAA17908 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Gz-0001Ue-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:17 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3Gy-0001Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 14906 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 12:16:16 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 12:16:16 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 24145 invoked by uid 101); 26 Nov 2003 12:16:16 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126171615.GH16434@iridium.mv.net> References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:15 -0500 Status: O On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 12:12:25PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Mark E. Mallett : > > Would "ADV" matching be done before or after any charset conversion? > > Can't be after -- your character set might wind up being one of the > wide-character CJK encodings, in which case you can't even write "ADV:". That was more or less the implication. Thanks for the other responses too. Yours, -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:24:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18206 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3OY-0002hK-Cp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHO6m5010364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3OY-0002h5-8K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:06 -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 MAA18199 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3OW-0001cf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3OW-0001cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3OT-0002eu-Nx; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3OA-0002eT-Lo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:42 -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 MAA18194 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3O9-0001cS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:41 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.85.27] helo=zardoc.esmtp.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3O8-0001cK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:40 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha9) with ESMTP id S000000003FA45F1901; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:24:15 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hAQHOFkj031958 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:24:15 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126172415.GA14610@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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, 26 Nov 2003 09:24:15 -0800 Status: O On Wed, Nov 26, 2003, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jon Kyme : > > Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? > > If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? > > I would be willing to draft a short RFC on spam and antispam headers. How about an optional ESMTP extension to have this also in the envelope? AFAIR there have been some proposals for a simple classification scheme already, maybe this can be used? For example: new EHLO keyword value "TAGS" with a list of tags the system recognizes: 220 TAGS ADV UBE UCE ... (more eloquent taggings systems have been proposed) and then those tags can be used in the "MAIL" command: MAIL From: TAGS=ADV such that the MTA can reject the mail (at MAIL or RCPT stage) based on the tags. Well, it's probably wishful thinking that spammers would do this even if they use the "ADV" Subject tagging. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:25:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18229 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3PU-0002uh-Ec for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHP459011193 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3PT-0002tJ-U8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:03 -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 MAA18226 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3PR-0001d6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3PR-0001d3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3PR-0002nA-L8; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3P3-0002mf-6f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:37 -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 MAA18204 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3P1-0001cn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:35 -0500 Received: from ns34.webmasters.com ([207.142.134.41]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3P0-0001cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:24:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 491 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 17:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO A3) (dave@flowerdog.com@66.229.76.120) by ns34.webmasters.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 17:23:23 -0000 Message-ID: <006401c3b442$163cf240$0300a8c0@A3> From: "Dave Atherton" To: "ASRG" References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:24:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Raymond" > The "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003" [CAN-SPAM] reads in part (11.2): > [CAN-SPAM] "An Act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing > limitations and penalties on the transmission of > unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the > Internet". S.877, passed the House on 21 Nov 2003. In consideration of the majority of the planet's population, should not references to CAN-SPAM and the houses of Congress be prefaced with terms like "US", "USA", or "US Federal"? -Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:41:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18679 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3f3-0003ig-N0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHf9et014292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3f3-0003iR-JB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:09 -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 MAA18665 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3f2-0001nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3f1-0001nZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3ev-0003g3-IE; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3eF-0003fe-TG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:40:19 -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 MAA18649 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3eA-0001n9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:40:14 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3eA-0001n0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:40:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 7061 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2003 17:39:42 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: <20031126173942.GC6537@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113210@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi" 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, 26 Nov 2003 18:39:42 +0100 Status: O --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-11-26 09:36:34 +1030, Chris wrote: > > > > It is worth noting that the word spam was coined in response to a failu= re > > that appeared in NNTP, a pull system long before the problem spread to > > email. > > >=20 >=20 > NNTP does allow a news server to ignore mail originating from known > spam/objectionable sources >=20 > it is the CHOICE of news server administrator to accept or deny from a > source >=20 > many news servers refuse to accept certain newsgroups >=20 > this is an example of a *pull* system functioning perfectly >=20 > and a good example of why pull should be a serious contender for use in > e-mail I disagree. NNTP is not generally a pull system. News between servers are mostly transported with a push system, only clients (and small servers like leafnode, hamster, etc.) use it as a pull system. This is very similar to E-Mail: Mails are transported to the user's mail server with a push system (SMTP) and fetched from there with a pull system (POP, IMAP). NNTP as a protocol just supports both modes. There are some differences between SMTP and NNTP feeds: SMTP is a unicast/multicast (oligocast?) protocol, NNTP is broadcast protocol. You only have to send a single NNTP message to reach all readers of a newsgroup, but you have to send a mail message to every single email address if you want to reach many people. So a newsgroup spammer sends out at most a few thousand messages (one for each newsgroup), but a mail spammer sends out millions. NNTP traffic is also generally public, so it is easy to set up bots which monitor the traffic and send out cancels, or to set up content filters. I think this is why Usenet spam died out after some time (at least I see very little Usenet spam these days - maybe I just read the wrong newsgroups :-). > > The issue is not how the bits are shipped. Every email communication is= by > > its nature initiated by the sender. It is the ability to initiate witho= ut > > any form of authorization that creates the spam problem. In effect the > > sender can consume unbounded respources. I don't see how tweaking the > > details of the protocol affects this. >=20 > you miss the point >=20 > if the recipient refuses the email it does not even get onto the transport > system >=20 > just a small portion of it Which reduces the traffic but not the time users spend. If I only see the sender address and the subject, I may still have to look at the content of the message to determine whether it is spam. There's not much difference whether it is in my local mailbox or on another server (except that accessing a remote server is slower). OTOH, if my mail filter has the whole message, it has a very good chance to determine whether it is spam or not (So I won't have to look at it any more). hp --=20 _ | Peter J. Holzer | In this vale |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Of toil and sin | | | hjp@hjp.at | Your head grows bald __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | But not your chin. -- Burma Shave --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/xOVdfZ+RkG8quy0RAja0AKCU0zSj8pD/dHdznP7tSTqwdchFwgCfXTZs hezLup2bsKljfgXTd5gCh2A= =M2Xt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:48:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19210 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3ln-0004QQ-9v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHm7xh017004 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3ln-0004QB-5F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:07 -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 MAA19176 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:47:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3ll-0001vA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3ll-0001v6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3lh-0004Ll-Cr; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3kw-0004Kc-Fy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:47:14 -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 MAA19130 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3ku-0001u0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:47:12 -0500 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3kt-0001rY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:47:12 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp10.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAQHka95014939; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:46:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002c01c3b445$43e155d0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Brett Watson" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:45:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov has a couple of times asked for a document containing pros and cons concerning pull mail. I started a similar debate about pull a month ago and I am willing to participate in creating such a document. Of course there are a number of ways to implement pull mail and each of them ought to be discussed with pros and cons. Some sort of conclusion ought to be reached. Cons are best written by push advocates when pull advocates have reached a certain point of agreement. Anyone interested? *** My proposal is in short: *** Mail from: sender@sender.server Mail to: receiver@receiver.server Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Body: ABC --- XYZ ** Step 1 From sender to sender.server --- Sent as today ** Step 2 From sender.server to receiver.server ---sender.server: "Mailfrom sender@sender.server Send Sendman; Mailto: receiver@receiver.server; Subject RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited); MailId:MAIL-NUMBER;AvailableAt:IP-ADDRESS;PassWord:SECRET-PWD" ---receiver.server: "OK;EncryptWith:SECRET-KEY" or, ---receiver.server: "NotOK;Receiver unknown" ** Step 3 Storage at IP-ADDRESS Sender server stores it at IP-ADDRESS encrypted with SECRET-KEY and throws SECRET-KEY away. (If receiver is unknown a mailer-daemon message is sent) ** Step 4 Receiver connects to receiver.server Receiver.server sends: "Mailfrom sender@sender.server Send Sendman; Mailto: receiver@receiver.server; Subject RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited); MailId:wqpprt;AvailableAt:IP-ADDRESS;EncryptedWith:SECRETKEY" Receiver can: - filter on IP address - filter on subject - filter on sender - allow only certain IP addresses - disallow certain IP-addresses - filter on public black- or greylists ** Step 5 Fetch mail receiver to IP-ADDRESS: "Send:MAIL-NUMBER;PassWord:SECRET-PWD" IP-ADDRESS: "Body: ABC --- XYZ" receiver to IP-ADDRESS: "OK" or "Please Save" If the latter is send IP-ADDRESS will mark the mail as read but the number of days the mail will remain is up to sender@sender.server. "Please Save" is used by a receiver who reads mail in multiple places. The mail program uses SECRET-KEY to decrypt the mail and presents it to the reader. Of course IP-ADDRESS can send "No Such Mail" or "Mail Deleted" ** Mail software: The sender's mail software displays mails in the ouput box. Read mails are moved to a "Read mails" mail box. PROS: 1) Sender sees if someone is spamming or sending viruses through his or her e-mail account and can remove the mails. 2) Filtering is done mainly on IP addresses which must be true and therefore are excellent to store in black or greylist forums. 3) Sender.server will limit number of outgoing mails and limit the storage size and thus limit the damages done by viruses or hackers. 4) If you want to spam you will need a server of your own or pay someone for it 5) IP addresses will be blacklisted or greylisted which will put preassure on administrators to avoid being cut off CONS: 1) More space is needed since every mail will be stored separately (I think it is a PRO) 2) A mailserver cannot easily change IP address (I think it is a PRO too) 3) Pull mail is less reliable and slower since an avarage mail will be further away from the receiver. VULNERABILITY: 1) A spammer will probably try to hack computers and install a mail storage on them. However the operating systems ought to close certain ports and virus scans ought to check if such ports are opened. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 12:49:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19267 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3mi-0004eQ-7r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHn4ZZ017868 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3mg-0004d8-GZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:02 -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 MAA19239 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3me-0001wB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3me-0001w8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3me-0004WT-NO; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3mG-0004Vp-5A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:36 -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 MAA19193 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3mE-0001vV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:34 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3mD-0001vR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:33 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHmWGU028446; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:33 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQHmWhC018607; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:32 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQHmWv8018605; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:32 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Dave Atherton Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126174831.GA16212@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <006401c3b442$163cf240$0300a8c0@A3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006401c3b442$163cf240$0300a8c0@A3> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:48:31 -0500 Status: O Dave Atherton : > In consideration of the majority of the planet's population, should not > references to CAN-SPAM and the houses of Congress be prefaced with terms > like "US", "USA", or "US Federal"? I had that about 0.75 done, I'll get the rest. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 13:03:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19890 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP40V-0005YM-Fr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQI3JJd021340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP40V-0005Y4-6B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:19 -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 NAA19857 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP40T-00029S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP40S-00029K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP40D-0005U7-JD; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP3zs-0005Tp-8E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:40 -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 NAA19850 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3zq-00029B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:38 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP3zp-000295-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:37 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQI2bGU028600 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:37 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQI2ahC027236 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:36 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQI2a4b027210 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:36 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126180235.GB16212@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126172415.GA14610@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126172415.GA14610@zardoc.esmtp.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:02:35 -0500 Status: O Claus Assmann : > Well, it's probably wishful thinking that spammers would do > this even if they use the "ADV" Subject tagging. I'm afraid so. Let me repeat this clearly, because it relates to several well-meant suggestions that have been raised. Neither CAN-SPAM nor the proposed draft RFC I am writing are written in the expectation that more than a tiny fraction of spammers will comply with their requirements. The clear purpose of CAN-SPAM, the purpose my draft is aimed to reinforce, is to back spammers into a corner such that the things they *must do* to continue spamming are illegal and will get them jailed. Therefore, elaborated systems of tagging or marking mail are not merely ratholes guaranteed to generate endless hours of unproductive argument, They are actually *pointless*, because they assume a world in which spammers can be persuaded to voluntarily mark their mail in ways that will shrink their unwilling audience. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 13:30:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20740 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4QB-0007Bb-VM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQITplb027617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4QB-0007BM-8B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:51 -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 NAA20728 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4Q9-0002Rt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4Q8-0002Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4PN-000775-Ju; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4Ol-00076k-0Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:23 -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 NAA20631 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4Oe-0002RT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:16 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4Od-0002RQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:15 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9BDAEC16 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> To: From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 13:28:07 -0500 Status: O At 5:04 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bruce Stephens wrote: >Bill Cole writes: > >[...] > >> The relevance of RSS is that it is a better alternative medium for >> the people currently (mis)using email as a one-way broadcast medium, >> without any mechanism for anything like spam. Much of the effort and >> hand-wringing and arguing over spam control mechanisms is really >> focused on not interfering with truly solicited broadcast email, and >> RSS gives those senders an alternative which does not have any >> exposure to side-effects of whatever might be retrofit onto email to >> stop spam. > >RSS is one, HTTP is another. The web browser that I use (and I >presume most others) provides a convenient way to automatically report >changes in specific web pages. Yes, but that HTTP trick has a lot of built-in failure modes, which is really why RSS came about. >If current spammers wanted to use >better mechanisms, they could just go ahead. I see no reason to attempt to accommodate spamming or intentional spammers in any way. One of the problem areas in dealing with spam is the collateral damage caused by every approach. As long as the only real difference between spam and some non-spam is whether the recipient asked for it and we lack any reliable deployed means of making that determination programmatically, every mechanism for stopping spam from being delivered will be fuzzy and stop some non-spam. Getting the non-spam broadcast material out of email altogether (email never having been a really suitable medium for it in the first place) reduces the risks of anti-spam measures clobbering material that is not really abusive. >The reasons they don't are partly cost, but partly they use email >(presumably) *because* it's the wrong medium---like snail bulk >mailers, they want their commercial or other messages to look like >personal messages so that people are more likely to read them. Right. Spammers use email because it is a medium that is open to spamming. Unfortunately, the most direct ways for stopping spam tend to catch all broadcast email even if it is desired by the recipients. If all the non-spammers doing broadcast email move to other media, the only people doing broadcast email will be spammers, and it will be open season. :) >For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or >whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space >for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email. >Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser >configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web page) would >be easier to get going. That's a technique with 8 years of hard failure modes behind it. It would be nice if there was a reliable lightweight standard way for web browsers to detect significant changes of HTTP-accessible documents, but there isn't. There's about an 80% solution, and the ways that it does not work are non-trivial to solve. >However, I suspect even that market wants >their valuable marketing messages to look like email, and so would >resist changing. It'll be interesting to see how successful ADV: >turns out to be in reality. Tagging subject headers in SMTP mail is a losing proposition. It is legally questionable in the US and the 'You CAN SPAM" act's mandate for it almost surely will see a legal challenge from someone serious enough to put that piece on hold long enough that it won't ever make a difference. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 13:49:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21266 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4j3-00080j-D5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQInLnZ030790 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4j1-00080X-LB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:19 -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 NAA21238 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4iz-0002gB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4iz-0002g8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4il-0007xu-3d; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4iQ-0007wm-BK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:48:42 -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 NAA21228 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4iN-0002fp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4iN-0002fj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQImUxO029940; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:48:30 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113220@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bill Cole'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 10:48:24 -0800 Status: O > Yes, but that HTTP trick has a lot of built-in failure modes, which > is really why RSS came about. Absolutely, the HTTP infrastructure is designed to support caching. It is not a change notification system and was never intended to be. At this point in the Web I am not sure that anyone really uses caching in the network. We are not working at 28.8K anymore... The HTTP protocol is intended to support use as a gateway protocol to a data source. There is no way that the HTTP server can require change notification from that data source. > >For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or > >whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space > >for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email. > >Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser > >configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web > page) would > >be easier to get going. > > That's a technique with 8 years of hard failure modes behind it. It > would be nice if there was a reliable lightweight standard way for > web browsers to detect significant changes of HTTP-accessible > documents, but there isn't. There's about an 80% solution, and the > ways that it does not work are non-trivial to solve. Hence RSS, it is a fairly widely deployed solution at this point. I do not see the reasoning behind creating a new protocol that has the same structure. I do not see the value of research that is intended to duplicate what is deployed. It would be quite easy to configure a client so that it allowed automatic subscription to RSS feeds. Probably the thing that is missing is a URL to identify the protocol so that the browser knows what to do with the link when you click on it. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 13:53:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21387 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP4mh-0008Rz-TX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQIr7uG032480 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4mh-0008Rn-Ip for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:07 -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 NAA21375 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4mf-0002j9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4mf-0002j6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4mb-0008Lw-Ty; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4lg-0008K2-I6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:08 -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 NAA21355 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4le-0002ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:02 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4ld-0002iB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:01 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 341651F001; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:55:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: <20031126185505.GF17282@mail> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:55:06 -0500 Status: O On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:29:54PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from sources > > that > > you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email replacement > > protocol. > > > Sure, I don't really see how fiddling SMTP to allow envelope (+some > headers?) and body to be transported separately - which is what this would > boil down to - can have any real advantage. As Phillip suggests, existing > pull protocols can be very useful for certain application swhich currently > use SMTP, "mailing lists" /discussion groups for instance. This is also > done with POP, IMAP and HTTP of course. One significant difference in a pull infrastructure is feedback. In the current SMTP 'push' model, the sender has no indication of whether a message was read or discarded. In a 'pull' model, the sender knows that the message was refused, because it was never picked up. To me this raises some interesting questions. 1) Will a spammer stop trying to send spam to a domain that always refuses his spam? (negative feedback) 2) Does this feedback help the spammer (i.e. reformat spam if he suspects Bayes caught it...) (informative property of feedback) 3) How long must my server hold mail for you to pick it up? (balance of burdens) -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Although some of you out there might find a microwave oven controlled by a Unix system an attractive idea, controlling a microwave oven is easily accomplished with the smallest of microcontrollers. - Russ Hersch - (Microcontroller primer and FAQ) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:02:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21788 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4vb-0000cj-Co for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJ2Jg4002391 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4vb-0000cU-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:19 -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 OAA21762 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4vY-0002sZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4vN-0002sR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4vJ-0000Ur-E6; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4uU-0000TS-Ti for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:01:10 -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 OAA21647 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:00:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4uR-0002p9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:01:07 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4uQ-0002p5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:01:06 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQJ15qm001825; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:01:05 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113221@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'esr@thyrsus.com'" , Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:00:57 -0800 Status: O How about IETF:Advertisement IETF:Spam IETF:etc. This tagging mechanism is used extensively in XML and the number of namespace collisions is remarkably small. Even though xml also uses URI namespace labels to define the meaning of the prefixes there are few collisions. Alternatively use the RFC number of the final draft: RFC1234:Advertisement That gets you into vanishingly small chances of collision. What we are defining here is a shared vocabulary of terms. What the AI folk incorrectly refer to as an Ontology (really its a system of 'being', the claim for machina ex deus seems to come from misreading Heidegger). All that we need to do is to ensure: 1) That all the interpreters of the tokens understand a given token in the same way 2) That all the generators of the tokens use tokens that are understood by the receivers. I think either of the schemes achieves that. The IETF: approach is probably preferable in the light of the CANSPAM act because it makes the origin unambiguous. The RFC1234: approach is preferable as a general rule. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric S. Raymond [mailto:esr@thyrsus.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:15 PM > To: Brett Watson > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations > for the FTC > > > Brett Watson : > > I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords" > > field for this purpose, but I think that any special > > universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given > > their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent > > of the field. > > This just pushes the problem back a level. How do you know you won't > collide with someone else's namerspace grab? :-) > -- > Eric S. Raymond > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 26 14:10:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22139 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP53F-0001SI-Rq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJADew005588 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP53E-0001S3-AY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:13 -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 OAA22131 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP53B-00030K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP53B-00030H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP534-0001OK-Ml; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP52q-0001Nf-3N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:09:48 -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 OAA22123 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP52n-000300-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:09:45 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP52n-0002zw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:09:45 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQJ9iqm003670; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:09:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:09:44 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113222@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'esr@thyrsus.com'" , Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:09:44 -0800 Status: O > Brett Watson : > > I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords" > > field for this purpose, but I think that any special > > universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given > > their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent > > of the field. > > This just pushes the problem back a level. How do you know you won't > collide with someone else's namerspace grab? :-) > -- The other point in this regard is that people are unlikely to grab namespace that is going to lead to their emails being deep-sixed. It is in practice pretty easy to grab namespace in the IETF. Just deploy something that uses it and the chance anyone will tread on you is negligible. There is an IP address that people are forbidden to use because it was the default address in an ancient version of SunO/S. Try to use the address and you would fail, even today. Consider the following thought experiment. I want to use a DNS code type for my own use. The WG refuses to accept my paper, I say screw them and deploy anyway and use the next number in line to do so. I deploy on a wide scale. What does the WG do when it comes to assign a code to the next draft that comes along needing one? Does it insist on creating a collision or just skip to the next one of the 65,000 free choices? If it is possible to game the system against the IETF in this way the reverse is also true. Nobody is likely to use one of these keywords as a result of an accident, provided that we take a step outside the domain used by human keyword generators. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:12:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22220 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP554-0001bt-0X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJC5xX006178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP553-0001ag-Qx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:05 -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 OAA22198 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP551-00031g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP551-00031d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP54z-0001Xh-VA; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP54p-0001XA-Ni for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:51 -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 OAA22181 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP54m-00031K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:48 -0500 Received: from bay2-f162.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.162] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP54m-00030V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:48 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:10:33 -0800 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:10:33 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] 6. Proposals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2003 19:10:33.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[F775ED30:01C3B450] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:10:33 -0300 Status: O One question regarding Eric's RFC proposal. Since RFC's by practice and definitions are international, shouldn't the references to the US law be clearly labeled as such? Suggestion: "The __US__ "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003" [CAN-SPAM]" "[CAN-SPAM] "An Act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet". S.877, passed the __US Congress__ on 21 Nov 2003." And I believe that the RFC 3098 in one stage of it's existence did include a suggestion to label the subject line with "ADV" for "spams". Must admit that I got surprised that it did not when I checked it now, since the idea was up for discussion in 2000-2001 (if my mind haven't been zapped by some cell phone that is :-). Regards Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:13:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22302 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP56V-0001yX-Fu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJDZdR007587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP56T-0001xz-TO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:33 -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 OAA22295 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP56R-00032x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP56Q-00032u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP55x-0001hL-Kq; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP55N-0001go-0T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:25 -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 OAA22214 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP55J-000324-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP55I-00031z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:20 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQJCHxO006884; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:12:17 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113223@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'David Maxwell'" , Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:12:15 -0800 Status: O > 3) How long must my server hold mail for you to pick it up? > (balance of > burdens) What happens if I try to push mail at you and you then respond by trying to pull it off my server and it is down? Do I have to retry? - leads to potential DDoS attacks. Do I just fail at first attempt? - leads to fragile and unreliable email transfer. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:14:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22321 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP56U-0001yF-Bm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJDYFo007569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP56T-0001y0-UP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:33 -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 OAA22296 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP56R-000330-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP56Q-00032t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP55y-0001hs-4P; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:13:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP55a-0001h2-77 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:38 -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 OAA22244 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP55X-00032S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:35 -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 1AP55X-00031p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:12:35 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00DOF3ZXH8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:12:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Message-id: <3FC4FAFC.5090507@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 14:11:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Jon Kyme wrote: > CANSPAM > "The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, > Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on > Energy and Commerce--a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment > of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic > mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with > Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' > in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of > any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend > against the plan." > > Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? > If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? > First of all, the primary responsibility for drafting this is on the FTC, not on the IETF. The requirement is that is must be compatible with IETF standards, not that the IETF has to write standards for this. The intent seems to be on the email standards, making sure that whatever labeling scheme they come up with does not interfere with IETF standards. Second, the Commission has the option of making the recommendations againt the plan. Third, this is the IRTF and not the IETF. While our work "feeds" into the IETF process, this may be an effort done on the IETF side. Fourth, the FTC has 18 months to do this so there is plenty of time. The FTC will decide how to interact with the IETF/IRTF. Also, the FTC has a liason relationship with the ASRG, and I contacted our contacts there to clarify the situation. I do not see at the current point an immediate need to make up a standard. While this would be nice to have anyway, the bill has not even been signed into law yet, so there is no rush. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:25:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22760 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Hg-0002Uu-E8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJP8u8009594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Hg-0002Uf-8N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -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 OAA22733 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Hd-0003DS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Hd-0003DP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Ha-0002Rw-Gn; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Gi-0002Qg-C9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -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 OAA22721 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Gf-0003D2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:05 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Gf-0003Cz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:05 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAQJO3xO009747; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:24:03 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Jon Kyme Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) 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, 26 Nov 2003 11:24:01 -0800 Status: O > Also, the FTC has a liason relationship with the ASRG, and I > contacted > our contacts there to clarify the situation. I do not see at > the current > point an immediate need to make up a standard. While this > would be nice > to have anyway, the bill has not even been signed into law > yet, so there > is no rush. I agree that a standard is premature. I think it would be useful to look at the range of options and their implications. If the IETF is going to agree to anything, 18 months is a laughably short schedule. It can take longer than that from last call to publication as an RFC. I think the probability of Bush not signing this particular bill is approaching that of a free pardon for Osama Bin Laden on the eve of the 2004 election. There are a fairly small number of possibilities here. I dislike overloading the subject line. I think the keyword proposal is good. I think that using the Priority: bulk flag to mean anything other than it originally meant is extreemly bad ju-ju. We could even leave it to the FTC to define keywords and get them assigned the FTC: prefix. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:26:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22913 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Ia-0002fK-4j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJQ4cO010239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Ia-0002f3-0C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:04 -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 OAA22853 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5IX-0003Fk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5IW-0003Fh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5IX-0002bC-UP; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Hl-0002Yw-N6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:13 -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 OAA22737 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Hj-0003DZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:11 -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 1AP5Hi-0003DC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:25:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00DZS4KZH8@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC4FDF3.5070106@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 14:24:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jon Kyme : > >>Is there a IETF standard for labelling commercial email? >>If not, should somebody make one up - quickly? > > > I would be willing to draft a short RFC on spam and antispam headers. > It could describe the following things: > > 3. Priority: bulk > I asked Jacob Palme (author of RFC 2076 on email headers) back in May about this header. His reply is as follows (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/3508/ and http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/3516/): --[snip]---- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:14:38 +0200 From: Jacob Palme dsv.su.se> Subject: re: RFC 2076 and spam The proper recipient to send this query to would be eitherone of the IETF mailing lists for experts on e-maillike for example IETF-822 Mailing List imc.org>, which is the most active present mailing list on e-mail standards, or a selection of the major experts in this area. I have added such a selection as recipients of this e-mail, to save a step. Here is what I believe these experts are going to say to you: The "Precedence" and "Priority" e-mail headers are not recommended in RFC 2076, because they have been used, and are still being used, by different e-mail systems in different ways. Thus, if you choose to use any of these headers, your usage may conflict with existing usage by some existing mail systems. Because of this, these experts will recommend that you handle this by a new header field not yet used for any other purpose. Some of the more dogmatic experts may say that you should not use header fields at all, but instead some kind of SMTP information. I would not agree, myself, with that more fundamentalistic view. My understanding is that there are already a number of spam-control e-mail headers, so one task of your group might be to specify a standard for such headers. ------[snip]------- ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:29:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23208 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5La-00030O-6N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJTAcC011546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5La-000309-0G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:10 -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 OAA23180 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5LX-0003N7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5LV-0003Mz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5LR-0002sw-2S; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5LM-0002si-Le for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:28:56 -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 OAA23170 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5LK-0003Mp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:28:54 -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 1AP5LJ-0003Mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:28:53 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ003SR4PCRC@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:27:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Jon Kyme , John R Levine , ASRG Message-id: <3FC4FE90.8050406@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@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, 26 Nov 2003 14:27:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>Also, the FTC has a liason relationship with the ASRG, and I >>contacted >>our contacts there to clarify the situation. I do not see at >>the current >>point an immediate need to make up a standard. While this >>would be nice >>to have anyway, the bill has not even been signed into law >>yet, so there >>is no rush. > > > I agree that a standard is premature. > > > I think it would be useful to look at the range of options and their > implications. If the IETF is going to agree to anything, 18 months is a > laughably short schedule. It can take longer than that from last call to > publication as an RFC. > I still think that the intent of the bill and mentioning IETF in the bill has been in order to make sure that the FTC's plan does not break email standards, NOT that the IETF should go ahead and make up its own standard: "by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards" Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:40:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23904 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Wg-0003vU-Tx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJec8m015084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Wg-0003vD-L9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:38 -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 OAA23875 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Wd-0003bk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Wd-0003bT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5W7-0003mU-17; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Vt-0003lj-UB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:50 -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 OAA23859 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Vr-0003bK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:47 -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 1AP5Vq-0003b1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:46 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ0047J57R5C@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:38:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Chris , Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC50127.3090803@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 14:38:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Chris : > >>so a blanket "adv" would force me to accept all mail and then try to >>filter on content as is the status quo > > > A blanket advertising label is all that CAN-SPAM requires (I have > just read it). Any more elaborate scheme would probably not be > enforceable under the Act. > > Besides, designing a *classification* system for commercial email > would be a rathole. Endless arguments about how to define the > categories. Fudging by the marketeers. Don't go there. Aren't we pre-empting FTC's authority here? It seems to me that the bill requires the FTC to make the plan in compliance with IETF standards, not that the IETF should make the standards. HOWEVER, on a related note, having a standard labeling system might help for interoperability between different systems. This is something that perhaps we should expand into. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:41:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23955 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5X6-00043g-WB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJf46w015594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5X5-00042s-He for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:03 -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 OAA23898 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5X2-0003c8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5X2-0003c5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5X3-0003w2-EK; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5WV-0003qv-Cw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:27 -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 OAA23869 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5WS-0003bZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:24 -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 1AP5WS-0003bR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:40:24 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ003NQ5ADU1@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:39:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal In-reply-to: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.com> To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC50181.7040509@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > --- spamlabel.txt 2003/11/26 13:45:49 1.1 > +++ spamlabel.txt 2003/11/26 14:50:53 > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ > Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against > the plan. > > - The IETF accepts this as direction to develop a technical > + The IETF accepts this as a request to develop a technical > recommendation for requirements on commercial email that will > support the purposes of the Act. > We have not received a formal request from the FTC yet on this. ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:43:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24034 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Z1-00048Q-J4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJh3LK015888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Z1-00048B-Ez for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:03 -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 OAA24020 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Yy-0003di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5Yy-0003df-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5Yz-00045c-9r; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5YD-00044w-LT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:42:13 -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 OAA23979 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5YA-0003cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:42:11 -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 1AP5YA-0003cT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:42:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00D0L5D6XJ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:41:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC501EA.4030608@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 14:41:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Jon Kyme wrote: >>In effect the IETF is suddenly given power to make secondary legislation. >> >> > It seems kind of sensible (unusual for legislators, sure) for the US > regulator to be directed to consider international > standardisation efforts when coming up with a plan for new regulations. > > It must be some kind of evil double-bluff. > Rule-making authority for this bill rests with the FTC. Their rules must be in compliance with IETF standards. So the FTC's responsibility is to change their proposal to comply with IETF standards, not the other way around, although they can request the IETF to change something. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 14:46:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24093 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5bw-0004JR-Cy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJk49M016571 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5bw-0004JC-7i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:04 -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 OAA24084 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5bt-0003g4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5bt-0003g1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP5bt-0004Gu-U1; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP5b6-0004GN-Ck for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:45:12 -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 OAA24073 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP5b3-0003fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:45:09 -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 1AP5b3-0003fW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:45:09 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ003K95IAU1@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:44:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Labeling (was Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal) In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Message-id: <3FC502A4.8030403@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 14:44:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject changed per posting guidelines. Mod.] Jon Kyme wrote: > > >>+ Internationalization was considered. With a total inventory of >>+ four tokens, the benefits seem small and the added complexity >>+ of a multilingual vocabulary rather pointless. >> > > > or one could provide for other equivalent and new tokens to be registered > somewhere... or in updates to the document. > > Please follow the posting guidelines (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm), it makes things easier to follow. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:22:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26588 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Aw-0006wb-3m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKMEsQ026687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Av-0006tH-6w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:13 -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 PAA26537 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6At-0004ET-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6At-0004EQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Ak-0006lS-Eq; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6AR-0006l5-OG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:43 -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 PAA26529 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6AQ-0004EC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:42 -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 1AP6AQ-0004Dq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:42 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GNR74QZ0@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:19:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-reply-to: <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Message-id: <3FC50ADA.4000808@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 15:19:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine : > >>Eric, >> >>i18n/l10n. >> >>Eric > > > I thought about it. > > Yes, the keywords and ADV are English. There are 4, count 'em 4 tokens; > with a vocabulary that small, the benefits of internationalization are > extremely dubious compared to the added complexity. > > I'll add a 'graph about this to the Rationale. At the recent OpenGroup Messaging Forum Conference, one of the speakers from Asia discussed the Korean anti-spam law that requires a similar labeling scheme in Korean. He mentioned that spammers tend to use different character sets that technical say the same thing, but in practice are harder to filter. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:25:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26683 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Dg-0007KD-9m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKP4do028149 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Df-0007Ig-PN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:03 -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 PAA26659 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6De-0004HS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6De-0004HP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Dd-0007FH-9q; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Cr-0007Ct-BU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:13 -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 PAA26642 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Cq-0004Gj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:12 -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 1AP6Cp-0004GU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:11 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00HTK78KJJ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:22:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC50B66.1080905@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:21:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Mark E. Mallett : > >>While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a >>header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message >>has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? >>I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. > > > I don't know of any standard practice. I had planned to write up such a > proposal as part of this draft, but as that is not responsive to the > CAN-SPAM request it is really a separate topic. However, such topic might be very useful to pursue anyway. Is anyway interested in this topic? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:25:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26686 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Dg-0007Kd-V8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKP4eI028177 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Dg-0007KO-R3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -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 PAA26663 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Df-0004HZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Df-0004HW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6De-0007Gi-ME; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Cs-0007Cy-KG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:14 -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 PAA26645 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Cr-0004Go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:13 -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 1AP6Cq-0004GV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:24:12 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GKA7BEHC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:23:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC In-reply-to: <20031126171500.GB18612@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC50BCA.5010409@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> <200311270351.32299.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126171500.GB18612@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 15:23:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Brett Watson : > >>I don't have any fundamental objection to the use of the "keywords" >>field for this purpose, but I think that any special >>universally-meaningful keywords which are introduced should be given >>their own "namespace", purely out of respect for the original intent >>of the field. > > > This just pushes the problem back a level. How do you know you won't > collide with someone else's namerspace grab? :-) I think the message quoting Jacob Palme stated pretty clearly that for these purposes a new header is needed. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:28:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26874 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Gf-0007iL-EK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKS9MI029653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Gf-0007iC-9C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:09 -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 PAA26860 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Gd-0004LI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Gd-0004LF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6GX-0007eW-Qy; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6GS-0007e5-8F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:27:56 -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 PAA26840 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6GO-0004Kk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:27:53 -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 1AP6GO-0004KC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:27:52 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00HPC7FVKL@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:26:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC50C6B.7000808@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:26:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Mark E. Mallett wrote: > While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a > header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message > has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? > I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. > There isn't one we are aware of, but if folks are interested perhaps we should work on one? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:30:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26939 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6IX-0007qm-91 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKU5d4030169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6IX-0007qT-3B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:05 -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 PAA26926 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:29:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6IV-0004MK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6IV-0004MH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6IU-0007o0-8r; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:30:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6IP-0007nh-K2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:29:57 -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 PAA26918 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6IO-0004M8-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:29:56 -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 1AP6IN-0004Lu-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:29:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GMW7J0L8@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX (was Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS and mta server together, registered smtp channel) In-reply-to: <49313e5dc8e53c7a4362f55d1676bb643fc4f996@mhs> To: use.signature.asrg@awot.fi Cc: asrg@irtf.org Message-id: <3FC50CDC.4050903@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <49313e5dc8e53c7a4362f55d1676bb643fc4f996@mhs> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:28:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O [Subject change per posting guidelines. Mod.] use.signature.asrg@awot.fi wrote: > Reverse MX = registered MTA. > Same idea like handling nameservers and networks. > > Registered MTA together = registered smtp channel. > > Full doc (roaming, dhcp, example, ...) > http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/textdb/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx > > > We have tested all our customers smtp connection in last days and it > works allways if sender MTA has reverse dns. Reverse domain = > in-addr.arpa is also tree, so it must works ... if NS works. > > That page include also shell script example which search ip's network > and so it's simple to make reverse mx query. Reverse is also nice > domain-tree . > > Ofcource this is not full answer of spam, but I think that it's much > more easier to communicate with registred nameservers and mta-servers as > with all servers ... > Take a look at the LMAP, RMX, DMP, SPF proposals: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/documents.php?wg_abbrev=lmap Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:34:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27103 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6MR-00085E-NG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKY740031066 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6MR-00084z-HP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:07 -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 PAA27092 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6MN-0004QE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6MN-0004QB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ML-00081J-3u; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Lp-0007zM-82 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -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 PAA27068 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Ln-0004Pb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:27 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Lm-0004PI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:26 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKXEGU029963; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKXDhC030840; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:13 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKXD3M030829; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:13 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Chris , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126203313.GA28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:13 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > Aren't we pre-empting FTC's authority here? It seems to me that the bill > requires the FTC to make the plan in compliance with IETF standards, not > that the IETF should make the standards. Um...how camn the FTC make a plan in compliance with IETF standards if there are *no* IETF standards? -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:35:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27148 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6NL-0008I0-RC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKZ3gI031767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6NK-0008FP-Sb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:02 -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 PAA27132 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6NJ-0004Qw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6NJ-0004Qt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6NJ-0008AR-AH; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Mk-00088u-7H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:26 -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 PAA27101 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Mi-0004QT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:24 -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 1AP6Mi-0004QA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:34:24 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GIT7SDHC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:33:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <20031126171407.GG16434@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Chris , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC50E2C.8090503@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FC41901.9060809@solidmatrix.com> <20031126171407.GG16434@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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:33:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Mark E. Mallett wrote: >>Pull retains the "openness" of the current system. but ultimately flips the >>coin from push to pull >>and delivers the choice to the recipient not the sender. > > > Personally I don't mind hearing about new ideas, but you have to > explain why the new ideas are any better or different from the old > ones. A free-form debate on a mailing list may or may not do it: > reference to a detailed document or description would be better. For > instance: > > - What can "pull" do that "push + sender-system-validation" can not? > > My imagination may be limited, but I can't think of anything other than > that "pull" introduces a whole nother round-trip conversation. (Now, > "pull" might be able to have other interesting things layered on top > of it, such as issuance of tickets or acceptance criteria or > redirections, but that's a more extended conversation). > > - What can "push + sender-system-verification" do that "pull" can not? > > Again with my limited imagination, it seems to me that > "push+validation" supports other things in the requirements document > (such as roaming) a lot better than "pull" -- and also supports > multiple sender systems better. > > (Note that I am not really looking for answers here, just pushing fodder > for any potential document.) > > I would second some of these points. Before going into the technical details of how it works, lets figure out why would this make things better. It might be useful if you use the checklist in the end of the technical considerations document. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:37:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27255 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6PN-0008PA-Fx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKb9Iw032302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6PN-0008Ov-55 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:09 -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 PAA27206 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6PL-0004Ry-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6PL-0004Rv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6PE-0008Ls-QQ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6OU-0008L9-I5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:14 -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 PAA27195 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6OT-0004Rp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6OS-0004Rm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:12 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKaCGU030009; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:12 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKaChC032704; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:12 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKaBQM032699; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:11 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126203611.GB28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113221@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113221@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:36:11 -0500 Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip : > I think either of the schemes achieves that. The IETF: approach is probably > preferable in the light of the CANSPAM act because it makes the origin > unambiguous. The RFC1234: approach is preferable as a general rule. I rather like that. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:38:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27285 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6QM-0000L8-66 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKcAHI001300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6QK-0000Kt-Uj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:09 -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 PAA27271 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6QJ-0004Ss-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6QJ-0004Sp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6QC-0000CF-M4; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Pe-0008US-IB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:26 -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 PAA27222 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Pc-0004SJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:25 -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 1AP6Pc-0004Ru-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:37:24 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GWH7VLL8@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:35:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <20031126203313.GA28865@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Chris , Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC50EA0.7070903@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> <20031126203313.GA28865@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich : > >>Aren't we pre-empting FTC's authority here? It seems to me that the bill >>requires the FTC to make the plan in compliance with IETF standards, not >>that the IETF should make the standards. > > > Um...how camn the FTC make a plan in compliance with IETF standards if there > are *no* IETF standards? I think they are referring to email standards. FTC comes up with a filtering plan and has to make sure it does not break email standards set up by the IETF. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:39:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27334 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6RE-0000Xt-Jy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKd4Ki002091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6RE-0000Xd-AG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:04 -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 PAA27309 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6RB-0004TR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6RB-0004TO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6RB-0000Rw-8Y; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Qr-0000QK-DG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:41 -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 PAA27301 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Qp-0004TK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:40 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Qp-0004TH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:39 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKccGU030044; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:38 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKcbhC001971; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:37 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKcbpI001969; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:37 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031126203837.GC28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <20031126171225.GA18612@thyrsus.com> <3FC50B66.1080905@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50B66.1080905@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:37 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > >I don't know of any standard practice. I had planned to write up such a > >proposal as part of this draft, but as that is not responsive to the > >CAN-SPAM request it is really a separate topic. > > However, such topic might be very useful to pursue anyway. Is anyway > interested in this topic? I still am, and I have implementation experience from the design of bogofilter. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:41:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27414 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6TE-0000ec-UR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKf8Pc002508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6TE-0000eN-On for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:08 -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 PAA27378 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6TD-0004Us-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6TD-0004Up-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6T8-0000c4-LF; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6SU-0000bN-Ah for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:40:22 -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 PAA27363 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6SS-0004Ua-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:40:20 -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 1AP6SS-0004UI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:40:20 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00HPB80ILK@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:38:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Alan DeKok Cc: Chris , harishm@ieee.org, ASRG Message-id: <3FC50F51.6000202@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Alan DeKok wrote: > "Chris" wrote: > >>Pull won't prevent spam, in fact it is more about giving choice to the >>recipient and taking it away from the sender > > > A simple "pull" system may be implemented by layering a notification > scheme on top of SMTP. Once the recipient is notified of a message, > he sends an ACK with other information, and the sender then knows > where to deliver the message. > Also, take a look at the following proposal that does notifications for attachments, it might be relevant: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murthy-attachment-notification-01.txt Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:45:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27528 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6X4-0000xk-1s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKj6rq003694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6X3-0000xV-Tg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:05 -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 PAA27518 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6X2-0004Xw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6X2-0004Xt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Wz-0000rV-SV; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Wp-0000rD-UX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:44:51 -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 PAA27511 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Wo-0004Xc-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:44:50 -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 1AP6Wo-0004XH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:44:50 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GT188OZ0@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:43:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Bill Cole Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC51078.5070801@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.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, 26 Nov 2003 15:43:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bill Cole wrote: > At 5:04 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bruce Stephens wrote: >> Bill Cole writes: >> [...] >> For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or >> whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space >> for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email. >> Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser >> configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web page) would >> be easier to get going. > > > That's a technique with 8 years of hard failure modes behind it. It > would be nice if there was a reliable lightweight standard way for web > browsers to detect significant changes of HTTP-accessible documents, but > there isn't. There's about an 80% solution, and the ways that it does > not work are non-trivial to solve. > Does RSS itself present a perfect consent system? The readers choose what to subscribe to, and when to unsubscribe, with the them having complete control over consent to read or not read certain communications? If complete consent control can be created in email, with the sender in charge at all times, then that would solve spam, since the sender must actively subscribe to something to receive it. That is one of the motiviations behind pull systems, where a hybrid approach of push and pull is used. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:47:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27587 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Yy-00018A-3H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKl4Ls004340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Yx-00017v-UL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:03 -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 PAA27571 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Yw-0004b6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6Yw-0004b3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6Yv-000148-Fn; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6YH-00012c-DD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:21 -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 PAA27547 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6YF-0004YS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:20 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6YF-0004YP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 8081 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 15:46:19 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 15:46:19 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 19838 invoked by uid 101); 26 Nov 2003 15:46:18 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:46:18 -0500 Status: O On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:26:19PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Mark E. Mallett wrote: > >While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a > >header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message > >has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? > >I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. > > > > There isn't one we are aware of, but if folks are interested perhaps we > should work on one? Would it be more appropriate for ietf-mta-filters ? I had intended to ask there, as well. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:49:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27720 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6bT-0001Ox-VM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKndLR005376 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6bT-0001Oc-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:39 -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 PAA27691 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6bR-0004dr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6bR-0004da-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ar-0001G0-58; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ac-0001FB-08 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:48:46 -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 PAA27667 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6aa-0004dA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:48:44 -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 1AP6aa-0004cy-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:48:44 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00HDS8EIKA@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:47:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113219@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Chris'" , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC5114B.6000004@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113219@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, 26 Nov 2003 15:47:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>>there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement >>>>Implementation is relativally simple >>> >>>Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major >>>providers of >>>email infrastructure? >> >>No of course not but that does not mean that it cannot happen > > > On the contrary, unless you can persuade Sendmail, Microsoft, Lotus to take > notice of you your project is dead on arrival. > The major MTA/MUA folks are monitoring the group. If a viable proposal comes up, convincing them would not be that hard. The issue is proving that something is viable. > > >>this is a research group. we should research and then make >>recommendations > > > This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. The scope is > control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. > > BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is > wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible. > Once again, the checklist in the end of the tech considerations document might prove helpful. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:51:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27781 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cq-0001X5-03 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKp3Zg005882 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cp-0001Wb-OO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:03 -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 PAA27757 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6co-0004fL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6cn-0004fH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cl-0001Rs-Va; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cI-0001RA-GM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:30 -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 PAA27745 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6cG-0004f0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:29 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6cG-0004ex-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:28 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKoSGU030156; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:28 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKoShC010032; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:28 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKoRwv010030; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:27 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Chris , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126205027.GD28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> <20031126203313.GA28865@thyrsus.com> <3FC50EA0.7070903@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50EA0.7070903@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:27 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > I think they are referring to email standards. FTC comes up with a > filtering plan and has to make sure it does not break email standards > set up by the IETF. Ah. I read the paragraph differently. The sense of it appears tto me that the FTC, in discharging its duty, should seek IETF guidance on *anti-spam* standards. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:51:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27783 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cp-0001X4-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKp3bt005870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cp-0001Wa-OM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:03 -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 PAA27758 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6co-0004fO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6cn-0004fI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6cm-0001SB-V4; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:51:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ck-0001Rf-Ex for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:58 -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 PAA27750 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6cj-0004f9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:57 -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 1AP6ci-0004ew-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:50:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00HO48HWJ8@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:49:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <002c01c3b445$43e155d0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> To: Dag Kihlman Cc: Brett Watson , John R Levine , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC511C3.1000506@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <002c01c3b445$43e155d0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O If sufficient interest exists in this, than we will consider making a subgroup for this effort. Yakov Dag Kihlman wrote: > Yakov has a couple of times asked for a document containing pros and cons > concerning pull mail. I started a similar debate about pull a month ago and > I am willing to participate in creating such a document. > > Of course there are a number of ways to implement pull mail and each of them > ought to be discussed with pros and cons. Some sort of conclusion ought to > be reached. Cons are best written by push advocates when pull advocates have > reached a certain point of agreement. > > Anyone interested? > > *** My proposal is in short: *** > > Mail from: sender@sender.server > Mail to: receiver@receiver.server > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > Body: ABC --- XYZ > > ** Step 1 From sender to sender.server > --- Sent as today > > ** Step 2 From sender.server to receiver.server > ---sender.server: "Mailfrom sender@sender.server Send Sendman; Mailto: > receiver@receiver.server; Subject RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System > (revisited); MailId:MAIL-NUMBER;AvailableAt:IP-ADDRESS;PassWord:SECRET-PWD" > ---receiver.server: "OK;EncryptWith:SECRET-KEY" > or, > ---receiver.server: "NotOK;Receiver unknown" > > ** Step 3 Storage at IP-ADDRESS > Sender server stores it at IP-ADDRESS encrypted with SECRET-KEY and throws > SECRET-KEY away. (If receiver is unknown a mailer-daemon message is sent) > > ** Step 4 Receiver connects to receiver.server > Receiver.server sends: "Mailfrom sender@sender.server Send Sendman; Mailto: > receiver@receiver.server; Subject RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System > (revisited); MailId:wqpprt;AvailableAt:IP-ADDRESS;EncryptedWith:SECRETKEY" > > Receiver can: > - filter on IP address > - filter on subject > - filter on sender > - allow only certain IP addresses > - disallow certain IP-addresses > - filter on public black- or greylists > > ** Step 5 Fetch mail > receiver to IP-ADDRESS: "Send:MAIL-NUMBER;PassWord:SECRET-PWD" > IP-ADDRESS: "Body: ABC --- XYZ" > receiver to IP-ADDRESS: "OK" or "Please Save" If the latter is send > IP-ADDRESS will mark the mail as read but the number of days the mail will > remain is up to sender@sender.server. "Please Save" is used by a receiver > who reads mail in multiple places. > > The mail program uses SECRET-KEY to decrypt the mail and presents it to the > reader. > > Of course IP-ADDRESS can send "No Such Mail" or "Mail Deleted" > > ** Mail software: > The sender's mail software displays mails in the ouput box. Read mails are > moved to a "Read mails" mail box. > > PROS: > 1) Sender sees if someone is spamming or sending viruses through his or her > e-mail account and can remove the mails. > 2) Filtering is done mainly on IP addresses which must be true and therefore > are excellent to store in black or greylist forums. > 3) Sender.server will limit number of outgoing mails and limit the storage > size and thus limit the damages done by viruses or hackers. > 4) If you want to spam you will need a server of your own or pay someone for > it > 5) IP addresses will be blacklisted or greylisted which will put preassure > on administrators to avoid being cut off > > CONS: > 1) More space is needed since every mail will be stored separately (I think > it is a PRO) > 2) A mailserver cannot easily change IP address (I think it is a PRO too) > 3) Pull mail is less reliable and slower since an avarage mail will be > further away from the receiver. > > VULNERABILITY: > 1) A spammer will probably try to hack computers and install a mail storage > on them. However the operating systems ought to close certain ports and > virus scans ought to check if such ports are opened. > > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:53:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27854 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6en-0001qH-Dr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKr50u007074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6en-0001pn-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:05 -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 PAA27840 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6el-0004hA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6el-0004h5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ei-0001lI-Sx; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6e0-0001jz-39 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:16 -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 PAA27829 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6dy-0004gb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:14 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6dx-0004gY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKqDGU030180; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:13 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKqChC011249; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:12 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKqCYj011233; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:12 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126205211.GE28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311270231.41117.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126154355.GC23766@thyrsus.com> <200311270351.32299.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031126171500.GB18612@thyrsus.com> <3FC50BCA.5010409@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50BCA.5010409@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:12 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > I think the message quoting Jacob Palme stated pretty clearly that for > these purposes a new header is needed. Fine. I've changed it to "Sender-Keywords" in draft and added a note that relays etc. SHOULD NOT remove or rewrite this header. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:53:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27869 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6en-0001qG-D8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKr5oO007060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6en-0001pm-5Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:05 -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 PAA27842 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6el-0004hC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6el-0004h6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ej-0001lq-El; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ec-0001l4-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:54 -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 PAA27834 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6ea-0004gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:52 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6eZ-0004go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:52 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKqoGU030187; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:50 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKqnhC011719; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:49 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKqmNn011706; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:48 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Kurt Magnusson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC Message-ID: <20031126205248.GF28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:52:48 -0500 Status: O Kurt Magnusson : > One question regarding Eric's RFC proposal. > > Since RFC's by practice and definitions are international, shouldn't the > references to the US law be clearly labeled as such? Suggestion: > > "The __US__ "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003" [CAN-SPAM]" > > "[CAN-SPAM] "An Act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing > limitations and penalties on the transmission of > unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the > Internet". S.877, passed the __US Congress__ on 21 Nov 2003." It's been done. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:55:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27949 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6gk-00026f-UP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKt6HS008091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6gk-00026Q-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:06 -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 PAA27912 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6gj-0004iV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6gi-0004iS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6gg-00022b-Jj; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP6gb-000221-FO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:57 -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 PAA27906 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6gZ-0004iI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:55 -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 1AP6gZ-0004hw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00DG68QKXJ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:54:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <20031126205027.GD28865@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Chris , Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC512FE.3070907@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031126104810.GA11242@thyrsus.com> <20031126130134.GA15378@thyrsus.com> <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> <20031126203313.GA28865@thyrsus.com> <3FC50EA0.7070903@solidmatrix.com> <20031126205027.GD28865@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 15:54:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich : > >>I think they are referring to email standards. FTC comes up with a >>filtering plan and has to make sure it does not break email standards >>set up by the IETF. > > > Ah. I read the paragraph differently. The sense of it appears tto me that > the FTC, in discharging its duty, should seek IETF guidance on *anti-spam* > standards. Well I am not sure then, lets see what the FTC says. I have spoken to our liasons at the FTC, and will forward their response to the group. I also contacted the IAB and the IESG/IETF, so they would be aware of this. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:56:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28015 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6hf-0002NN-L1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKu3X3009127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6hf-0002N8-FD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:03 -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 PAA27986 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6hd-0004jV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6hd-0004jS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6hd-0002H7-K7; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6gz-0002CZ-5T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:21 -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 PAA27929 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6gx-0004iu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:19 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6gw-0004ir-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:19 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKtJGU030221; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:19 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQKtHhC013391; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:17 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKtGdi013384; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:16 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Changes to Spam Labeling RFC proposal Message-ID: <20031126205516.GG28865@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261454.hAQEsTRr032166@snark.thyrsus.com> <3FC50181.7040509@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC50181.7040509@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:55:16 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > We have not received a formal request from the FTC yet on this. Understood. I think it would look better if we already have an RFC on track when that request arrives. If it doesn't, we haven't lost anything. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 15:59:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28089 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6ka-0002WY-1i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQKx4VQ009696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6kZ-0002WJ-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:03 -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 PAA28076 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6kY-0004lX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6kY-0004lU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6kX-0002Sg-Ey; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6jh-0002SG-CI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:58:09 -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 PAA28053 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:57:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6jf-0004lF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:58:07 -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 1AP6jf-0004l0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:58:07 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00DVO8VXXJ@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:57:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems In-reply-to: <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC513BC.6040006@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:57:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Mark E. Mallett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:26:19PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Mark E. Mallett wrote: >> >>>While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a >>>header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message >>>has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? >>>I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. >>> >> >>There isn't one we are aware of, but if folks are interested perhaps we >>should work on one? > > > Would it be more appropriate for ietf-mta-filters ? > I had intended to ask there, as well. > I am forwarding this message to the IAB to see where would be the proper place for this, and whether the entire idea should be pursued. Meanwhile, it would be useful if all of the folks that are interested in this, let us know about their interest. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 16:04:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28284 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pW-0002pl-1L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQL49Dt010888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pV-0002nt-5l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:09 -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 QAA28248 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6pS-0004pr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6pR-0004pi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pN-0002eh-Kz; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6p7-0002e2-TM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:45 -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 QAA28239 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6p6-0004pZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:44 -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 1AP6p5-0004pE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:43 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GLB959H7@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:03:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems In-reply-to: <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC5150C.4060602@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Mark E. Mallett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:26:19PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Mark E. Mallett wrote: >> >>>While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a >>>header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message >>>has passed through? e.g. "X-Filtered-By: spamanoid version 3.2" ? >>>I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it. >>> >> >>There isn't one we are aware of, but if folks are interested perhaps we >>should work on one? > > > Would it be more appropriate for ietf-mta-filters ? > I had intended to ask there, as well. > I passed on the request. Meanwhile, I wanted to know, if standard headers are used for this, then what will stop a spammer from injecting those headers with a positive score into the message, and what would the MUAs, MTAs and filters do in that case? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 16:36:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29145 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7KR-00047D-Vb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQLa7qo015813 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7KR-00046y-Qh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:07 -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 QAA29121 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7KP-0005AF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7KP-0005AC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7KK-00043H-Ec; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:36:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7KD-00042j-E5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:53 -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 QAA29104 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7KB-00059n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:51 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7KA-00059k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 20120 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 16:35:51 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 16:35:51 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 17218 invoked by uid 101); 26 Nov 2003 16:35:47 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , "Eric S. Raymond" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Message-ID: <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:35:47 -0500 Status: O > > I passed on the request. Meanwhile, I wanted to know, if standard > headers are used for this, then what will stop a spammer from injecting > those headers with a positive score into the message, and what would the > MUAs, MTAs and filters do in that case? I'm interested in the topic, perhaps not to wrangle over it but at least to have a standard way of identifying the filter program(s) being used. If there's already something in practical use, or some current thinking on the subject, so much the better. I was thinking mostly of a meaningless "filtered-by" sort of label, but you mention a score, for which there might be a more structured header or suite of headers. Personally I think that with a variety of ways of marking scores (or in fact even having the concept of a "score"), it would be hard to specify the a particular structure here. Plus you might have a message passing through multiple filters, each of which would want to place its mark on the message without disturbing other such marks (so you'd need a tuple of at least {agent, location, assessment}). Anyway I don't mean to go off on details here. I am interested should it be discussed somewhere. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 16:44:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29353 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7S9-0004lq-4K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQLi5KV018332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7S8-0004lb-VH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:04 -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 QAA29338 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7S7-0005FR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7S6-0005FO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7S4-0004jR-Qq; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7RU-0004iT-2O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:24 -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 QAA29326 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7RS-0005Er-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:22 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7RR-0005En-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:21 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA9DAECE0 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:20 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FC51078.5070801@solidmatrix.com> References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> <3FC51078.5070801@solidmatrix.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 16:43:15 -0500 Status: O At 3:43 PM -0500 11/26/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Bill Cole wrote: >>At 5:04 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bruce Stephens wrote: >>>Bill Cole writes: >>>[...] >>>For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or >>>whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space >>>for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email. >>>Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser >>>configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web page) would >>>be easier to get going. >> >> >>That's a technique with 8 years of hard failure modes behind it. It >>would be nice if there was a reliable lightweight standard way for >>web browsers to detect significant changes of HTTP-accessible >>documents, but there isn't. There's about an 80% solution, and the >>ways that it does not work are non-trivial to solve. >> > >Does RSS itself present a perfect consent system? It seems so to me. RSS is strictly a client-initiated pull system. In essence it is a layer of XML metadata describing resources which are primarily transferred via HTTP at the request of the client. >The readers choose what to subscribe to, and when to unsubscribe, >with the them having complete control over consent to read or not >read certain communications? Yes. The reader's RSS software (usually referred to as an 'aggregator') regularly updates whatever 'feeds' the user subscribes to in order to present whatever might be new in those feeds. The critical mass for RSS has come from weblogging software and sites that provide RSS feeds. The RSS 2.0 spec is at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss and there is a somewhat competitive RDF-based RSS 1.0 that I gather has some serious adherents as well. >If complete consent control can be created in email, with the sender >in charge at all times, then that would solve spam, since the sender >must actively subscribe to something to receive it. That is one of >the motiviations behind pull systems, where a hybrid approach of >push and pull is used. I think that pull systems are less 'email' the more purely they follow 'pull' models. The example of the blogging universe predominantly using RSS as the means of content providers getting material to readers rather than the traditional mailing list with all of its clunkiness is a good sign. Email may be the 'killer app' of the Internet that can be made to do everything, but it is not designed to do everything well, and it may simply be time to start narrowing what email is allowed to do in order to push the traffic into more suitable media: many-way discussions to NNTP, serial broadcast to RSS. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 16:54:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28285 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pW-0002pk-0t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQL49BT010889 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pV-0002o1-5p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:09 -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 QAA28246 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6pS-0004pp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6pR-0004pj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6pN-0002eY-5C; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP6oT-0002dr-S1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:05 -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 QAA28211 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6oS-0004pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:04 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP6oR-0004p8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:03 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQL33GU030337 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:03 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQL32hC018081 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQL32sV018049; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200311262103.hAQL32sV018049@snark.thyrsus.com> From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: ASRG Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals -- Second revision of spam-labeling draft proposed RFC Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Status: O This version addresses all technical and editorial issues raised in the group thus far. The "Keywords" header has been changed to "Sender-Keywords" in light of Jacob Pame's recommendation. References to U.S. law have been internationalized. The Rationale has more material addressing various issues and objections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anti Spam Research Group Eric Raymond Internet-Draft Open Source Initiative Expires: XXXX XX, 2004 Nov 26 2003 Requirements for Advertising and Bulk Email Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on XXXX XX, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This Internet-Draft describes standards for labeling of commercial and bulk email. 1. Introduction The "CAN-SPAM Act of 2003" [CAN-SPAM] amends U.S. Federal law to read in part (11.2): The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan. The IETF accepts this as a request to develop a technical recommendation for requirements on commercial email that will support the purposes of the Act. 2. Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. For purposes of this RFC, "commercial email" is email sent for the purpose of advertising a product or service, but not including transactional or relationship messages. See CAN-SPAM Section 3.2. For purposes of this RFC, "bulk email" is mail duplicated to a list of one hundred (100) or more recipients in substantially identical form; that is, such that the variations do not affect the meaning of the mail as it is read by a human being. For purposes of this RFC, "porn email" is mail which either contains pornographic content or which offers access to such material. In U.S. jurisdictions, the relevant legal definition is section 2256 of title 18, United States Code. 3 Labeling methods 3.1 The ADV convention Commercial email from reputable firms is often labeled with the prefix "ADV:" in the Subject header. This has the advantage of being readily visible, because effectively all mail readers display mail subject lines in their summary views. It has the disadvantage that, because of the way many mailreaders generate reply subject lines, the label may persist in replies where it is not appropriate, 3.2 The Sender-Keywords header The Sender-Keywords header contains keywords describing the content of the mail. Keywords are separated by whitespace and/or commas. For purposes of conformance to the requirements of [CAN-SPAM], the following keywords are defined: advertising Applicable to any commercial email bulk Applicable to any bulk email porn Applicable to any porn email The Sender-Keywords is a necessary part of the sender's compliance with [CAN-SPAM] and SHOULD NOT be removed or rewritten by relaying systems, MTAs, or MUAs 4. Opt-out support The List-Unsubscribe header, defined in [RFC2369], supports list unsubscription via mechanisms including: (a) a mailto: URL with the property that sending mail to it unsubscribes the sender. (b) a URL to a page where the user may enter an address to be unsubscribed. The presence of these mechanisms fulfills the requirements of [CAN-SPAM] 5.3. 5. Accountability and transparency The List-Owner header, defined in [RFC2369], specifies a responsible list administrator to cope with situations in whicch the List-Unsubscribe mechanisms are inadequate or temporarily faulty. The List-Owner header is optional and may be omitted if the responsible person is the postmaster of the originating system. 6. Conformance requirements These conformance requirements directly address the legal requirements of [CAN-SPAM], and will constitute the Internet Engineering Task Force's recommendation to the Federal Trade Commission as solicited in section 11.2. Commercial electronic mail MUST be labeled using at least one of either the ADV: Subject-line prefix or the token "advertising" in a Sender-Keywords header. Bulk email MAY be labeled with the token "bulk" in a Keywords header. Commercial bulk email MUST be so labeled. Porn email MAY be labeled with the token "porn" in a Keywords header. Commercial porn email MUST be so labeled. Commercial bulk email MUST include a List-Unsubscribe header implementing the RFC2369 proposal. Commercial bulk email SHOULD, if the responsible sender is not the postmaster of the originating system, include a List-Owner header implementing the RFC2369 proposal. 7. Rationale In the interests of making adoption as rapid and painless as possible, this RFC extends and codifies existing practice rather than inventing new mechanisms. ADV: by itself is not sufficient. The user's MUA might render the Subject line in a CJK or other encoding in which the characters "ADV:" don't exist. The temptation to design a classification system for advertising, permitting more exact labeling than "ADV:", is strong. However, no such elaborate system is required by [CAN-SPAM], and were we to invent one it might in fact be unenforceable under the Act. Furthermore, the boundaries of such a system would be a subject of endless dispute, both during design and after implementation. The conformance requirements have been designed to have minimal impact on individual mail senders, maximal impact on commercial bulk mailers. In particular, the guidelines on labeling non-bulk mail in the "advertising" and "porn" classes are written with MAY rather than SHOULD because the spam problem isn't caused by one-to-one communication. Internationalization was considered. With a total inventory of four tokens intended to be maxhine-readable (rather than presented directly to humans), the benefits seem small and the added complexity of a multilingual vocabulary rather pointless. 6. References [CAN-SPAM] "An Act to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet". S.877, passed the U.S. House or Representatives on 21 Nov 2003. [RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level"; Scott Bradner. [RFC2822] "RFC 2822 - Internet Message Format"; Peter Resnick (Editor). [RFC2369] "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields"; Joshua D. Baer & Grant Neufeld. Authors' Addresses Eric S. Raymond Open Source Initiative 6 Karen Drive, Malvern PA 19355 US EMail: esr@thyrsus.com URI: http://www.catb.org/ Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgements Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. -- Eric S. Raymond "...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD), _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:15:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00312 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7wZ-0006Kt-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMFV5X024352 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7wZ-0006Kh-CC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:31 -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 RAA00225 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7wX-0005d8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:29 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7wW-0005cw-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AP7uN-0008KA-Fo for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:13:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7u8-0006Bk-Sr; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7tB-0006AJ-B4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:12:01 -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 RAA00160 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7t9-0005by-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:11:59 -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 1AP7t8-0005bj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:11:58 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GVBCB0HW@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:11:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems In-reply-to: <20031126220035.GA26584@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC5250B.4000304@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> <20031126220035.GA26584@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 17:11:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Mark E. Mallett : > >>I'm interested in the topic, perhaps not to wrangle over it but at >>least to have a standard way of identifying the filter program(s) >>being used. If there's already something in practical use, or some >>current thinking on the subject, so much the better. I was thinking >>mostly of a meaningless "filtered-by" sort of label, but you mention a >>score, for which there might be a more structured header or suite of >>headers. Personally I think that with a variety of ways of marking >>scores (or in fact even having the concept of a "score"), it would be >>hard to specify the a particular structure here. Plus you might have >>a message passing through multiple filters, each of which would want >>to place its mark on the message without disturbing other such >>marks (so you'd need a tuple of at least {agent, location, assessment}). > > > Right. I ran up against this while designing bogofilter. The syntax you > want is something like this: > > * Semicolon-separated fields > > * Each field to consist of a agent@hostname:evaluation token > > * the evaluation field to consist of comma-separated keyword=value > > * The agent field should be versioned, so a real example should look like: > > bogofilter-5.23@thyrsus.com:spam-probability=90%,forged_address=yes; Would that mean that the MUAs have to be matched to the user agent of the filters of the MTA that they use? What about a spammer forging the header coming from the filter? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:16:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00442 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7xZ-0006Vx-6N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMGX5X025035 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7xY-0006VU-M3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:32 -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 RAA00346 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7xV-0005fH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7xV-0005ez-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7x4-0006NM-4N; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7wl-0006MM-31 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:43 -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 RAA00292 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7wi-0005eT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:40 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7wi-0005eG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:40 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AP7hq-00082A-KM for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:18 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP7hp-0003G4-6z; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:00:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031126185505.GF17282@mail> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "David Maxwell" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:00:17 +0000 Status: O > > In the current SMTP 'push' model, the sender has no indication of > whether a message was read or discarded. > Doesn't *usually* have any indication. I don't suppose a sender will ever *know* if a message hase been read or discarded. I hope not :-) > In a 'pull' model, the sender knows that the message was refused, > because it was never picked up. > the sender *may* *conclude* that the message was refused if it wasn't picked up in a certain time. > To me this raises some interesting questions. > > 1) Will a spammer stop trying to send spam to a domain that always > refuses his spam? (negative feedback) > > 2) Does this feedback help the spammer (i.e. reformat spam if he > suspects Bayes caught it...) (informative property of feedback) > These are interesting points and have been brought up in discussions of the value of filtering during SMTP transaction. ( http://www.merseymail.com/asrg/Filter-SMTP.txt - I must have a look at this again) Consider SMTP transaction under the control of the recipient, then getting envelope need not be followed by the getting of body, and the getting the body need not be folowed by a positive response. I can't see why recipient controlled filtering during SMTP doesn't give most (all) of the advantages of a SMTP/pull system. It's kindof equivalent, except it has to be automated (i guess) and it doesn't build in a delay. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:17:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00461 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:17:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7xr-0006X2-O3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMGpqB025102 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7xr-0006Wn-Jz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:51 -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 RAA00386 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7xp-0005h9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:16:49 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7wd-0005cw-03 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:15:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AP7in-00083F-5N for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7ia-0005KW-4c; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP7iA-0005Ge-UF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:38 -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 RAA29884 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7i8-0005Tm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:36 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP7i7-0005TT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:35 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQM0ZGU030854; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:35 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQM0ZhC026629; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:35 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQM0ZZB026627; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:35 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Message-ID: <20031126220035.GA26584@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:00:35 -0500 Status: O Mark E. Mallett : > I'm interested in the topic, perhaps not to wrangle over it but at > least to have a standard way of identifying the filter program(s) > being used. If there's already something in practical use, or some > current thinking on the subject, so much the better. I was thinking > mostly of a meaningless "filtered-by" sort of label, but you mention a > score, for which there might be a more structured header or suite of > headers. Personally I think that with a variety of ways of marking > scores (or in fact even having the concept of a "score"), it would be > hard to specify the a particular structure here. Plus you might have > a message passing through multiple filters, each of which would want > to place its mark on the message without disturbing other such > marks (so you'd need a tuple of at least {agent, location, assessment}). Right. I ran up against this while designing bogofilter. The syntax you want is something like this: * Semicolon-separated fields * Each field to consist of a agent@hostname:evaluation token * the evaluation field to consist of comma-separated keyword=value * The agent field should be versioned, so a real example should look like: bogofilter-5.23@thyrsus.com:spam-probability=90%,forged_address=yes; -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:25:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00651 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP85r-0006mk-Ib for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMP7bJ026076 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP85r-0006mV-Eu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:07 -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 RAA00644 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP85p-0005ng-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP85o-0005nd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP85m-0006il-4e; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP856-0006iD-OD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:20 -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 RAA00630 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP854-0005nK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:18 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP853-0005nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:17 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip159-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.159]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDFB836D88 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:31 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> References: <3FC26859.2080307@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:24:31 -0500 Status: O On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:33:23AM +1030, Chris wrote > In my preferred implementation of a pull system some additional steps are > added.. > > 1/ sender connects to smtp host machine > 2/ senders host accepts mail from sender (usually authenticated) > 3/ senders host contacts recipients host machine > 3a/ senders host sends mail waiting command (pull request) > 3b/ recipients host acknowledges receipt of mail waiting command with a > unique message identifier. > 3c/ senders host queues message tagged with ID > 4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms > based on recipients personal preferences > 4a/ recipients host contacts senders host with unique identifier, thus > authenticating sender. > 4b/ recipients host issues a message accepted or denied command (with the > reason) > 4c/ if accepted mail is forwarded to recipients host machine > 5/ receiver connects to his smtp host machine and uploads mail > > > You will notice that for the sender and receiver the process is unchanged. This appears very similar to "Insta-kiss" or "E-card" operations. "You have email from an anonymous admirer. Click on http://www.bad.example.com/mystery-admirer to find out...". Just as those are open to abuse, so is your system. Secondly, RSS already handles mailing lists better than mailing lists. This brings me to make my own proposal... end all mailing lists as we know them, and change over to RSS, or something similar (e.g. moderated internal newsgroups). Mailing lists were originally set up in a "kinder gentler" internet. Today they are being abused by spammers using euphemisms like "permission-based", etc. The fringe spammers are illegal now, even without the "(Yes, you) CAN SPAM" act. What worries me are the "respectable" spammers, aka "mainsleaze" who are perfectly free to blast away now. Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:31:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00869 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8Bd-0006yR-4V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMV5x8026801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8Bd-0006yC-0C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:05 -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 RAA00837 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8Ba-0005qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8Ba-0005qv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:31:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8BZ-0006vt-Vb; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP8BL-0006vT-IA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:47 -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 RAA00832 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8BJ-0005qp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:45 -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 1AP8BI-0005qV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:44 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00GW7D69HW@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:30:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS In-reply-to: <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3FC52972.9020405@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FC26859.2080307@solidmatrix.com> <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Walter Dnes wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:33:23AM +1030, Chris wrote > > >>In my preferred implementation of a pull system some additional steps are >>added.. >> >>1/ sender connects to smtp host machine >>2/ senders host accepts mail from sender (usually authenticated) >>3/ senders host contacts recipients host machine >>3a/ senders host sends mail waiting command (pull request) >>3b/ recipients host acknowledges receipt of mail waiting command with a >>unique message identifier. >>3c/ senders host queues message tagged with ID >>4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms >>based on recipients personal preferences >>4a/ recipients host contacts senders host with unique identifier, thus >>authenticating sender. >>4b/ recipients host issues a message accepted or denied command (with the >>reason) >>4c/ if accepted mail is forwarded to recipients host machine >>5/ receiver connects to his smtp host machine and uploads mail >> >> >>You will notice that for the sender and receiver the process is unchanged. > > Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass > mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from > under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing > will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore > thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal > usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. > Mailing lists and USENET groups work with email. When someone responds to a mailing list, he does so via email. Two questions stick one: (1) Are there utilities for mailing lists today that interact with both email and RSS, including MUAs; and (2) what happens if a spammer sends spam to the list, it still clogs up the list. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:35:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00934 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8FY-0007Me-Ks for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMZ8KQ028242 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8FX-0007Kx-0G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:07 -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 RAA00927 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8FU-0005uk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8FU-0005uh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8FT-0007F5-4q; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8FE-0007Ef-Rs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -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 RAA00916 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8FC-0005uM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:34:46 -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 1AP8FB-0005u8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:34:46 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ0018CDBVOM@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:33:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Bill Cole Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC52A36.5050500@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> <3FC51078.5070801@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, 26 Nov 2003 17:33:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bill Cole wrote: > At 3:43 PM -0500 11/26/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> Bill Cole wrote: >>> At 5:04 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bruce Stephens wrote: >>>> Bill Cole writes: .... >> If complete consent control can be created in email, with the sender >> in charge at all times, then that would solve spam, since the sender >> must actively subscribe to something to receive it. That is one of the >> motiviations behind pull systems, where a hybrid approach of push and >> pull is used. > > > I think that pull systems are less 'email' the more purely they follow > 'pull' models. The example of the blogging universe predominantly using > RSS as the means of content providers getting material to readers rather > than the traditional mailing list with all of its clunkiness is a good > sign. > > Email may be the 'killer app' of the Internet that can be made to do > everything, but it is not designed to do everything well, and it may > simply be time to start narrowing what email is allowed to do in order > to push the traffic into more suitable media: many-way discussions to > NNTP, serial broadcast to RSS. Can we connect the two: can mailing lists be distributed via RSS, with an ability to receive them in an MUA, and ability to respond to them via email. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:49:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01479 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8T6-0008Rh-5N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMn8ZU032459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8T6-0008RS-0y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:08 -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 RAA01463 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8T3-00067Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8T3-00067N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8Sz-0008PA-4w; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8SE-0008Lu-6U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:48:14 -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 RAA01391 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8SB-00065t-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:48:11 -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 1AP8SB-00065b-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:48:11 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ004KLDW27F@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:45:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Bill Cole'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Message-id: <3FC52D13.4010801@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 17:45:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Paul Judge wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:33 PM >>To: Bill Cole >>Cc: Asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > >>Can we connect the two: can mailing lists be distributed via >>RSS, with >>an ability to receive them in an MUA, and ability to respond >>to them via >>email. > > > > Sure. There are several RSS aggregators available (commercial and > non-commercial) that allow one to receive and even respond to RSS feeds from > within an MUA. > Then the question goes back to the pull systems and RSS in general - how will it stop spam? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:50:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01518 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8U1-0000DL-Nj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMo5Uv000816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8U0-0000D5-SH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:04 -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 RAA01508 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8Tx-00067z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8Tx-00067w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:50:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8Ty-00005o-Is; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP8TH-0008TD-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:19 -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 RAA01467 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8TE-00067Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8TE-00067V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AP8TE-0002qS-V9; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:49:16 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FC4FAFC.5090507@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:49:16 +0000 Status: O > > First of all, the primary responsibility for drafting this is on the > FTC, not on the IETF. Well, yes, and no. Clearly, your FTC have to address "CANSPAM". Coming up with mechanisms for message labelling is for any interested party > The requirement is that is must be compatible with > IETF standards, not that the IETF has to write standards for this. The > intent seems to be on the email standards, making sure that whatever > labeling scheme they come up with does not interfere with IETF > standards. I don't believe there are currently any specifically relevant standards. Given the intent you identify, this is probably a good opportunity. Second, the Commission has the option of making the > recommendations againt the plan. Of Course > Third, this is the IRTF and not the > IETF. Consideration of message labelling seems to me to be well within our charter. > While our work "feeds" into the IETF process, this may be an > effort done on the IETF side. Fourth, the FTC has 18 months to do this > so there is plenty of time. The FTC will decide how to interact with the > IETF/IRTF. 18 months in which we may come up with something, survey MUAs, Filter systems and consider making some kind of suggestion to the IETF. At the rate things seem to go around here - that's a desperate rush :-) > > Also, the FTC has a liason relationship with the ASRG, and I contacted > our contacts there to clarify the situation. I do not see at the current > point an immediate need to make up a standard. While this would be nice > to have anyway, the bill has not even been signed into law yet, so there > is no rush. It's never going to be law for most of the world, that's not really the point. It's just recently become a hotter topic than hitherto. Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 17:58:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01798 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8bm-0000T8-3C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQMw6SB001793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8bl-0000Sq-Uw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:05 -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 RAA01783 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8bj-0006EO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8bi-0006EL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8bh-0000Qc-A9; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8b2-0000Ob-Om for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:57:20 -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 RAA01721 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8ax-0006D1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:57:15 -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 1AP8aw-0006CG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:57:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ004L8EAP7F@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:54:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC52F20.8080701@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 17:54:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Jon Kyme wrote: >>While our work "feeds" into the IETF process, this may be an >>effort done on the IETF side. Fourth, the FTC has 18 months to do this >>so there is plenty of time. The FTC will decide how to interact with the >>IETF/IRTF. > > > 18 months in which we may come up with something, survey MUAs, Filter > systems and consider making some kind of suggestion to the IETF. At the > rate things seem to go around here - that's a desperate rush :-) > Agreed :) I just don't want people to think that this thing is becoming an IETF standard tomorrow :) > > >>Also, the FTC has a liason relationship with the ASRG, and I contacted >>our contacts there to clarify the situation. I do not see at the current >>point an immediate need to make up a standard. While this would be nice >>to have anyway, the bill has not even been signed into law yet, so there >>is no rush. > > > It's never going to be law for most of the world, that's not really the > point. It's just recently become a hotter topic than hitherto. > Point taken. ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:02:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01976 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fm-0000qy-HY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQN2EBm003268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fm-0000oh-0E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:14 -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 SAA01922 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8fi-0006J8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8fi-0006J4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fZ-0000c6-4s; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8f7-0000bP-JV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:33 -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 SAA01900 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8f4-0006GW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8f4-0006GS-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 4753B65088; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:31:27 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113219@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 09:35:11 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > > > there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement > > > > Implementation is relativally simple > > > > > > Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major > > > providers of > > > email infrastructure? > > > > No of course not but that does not mean that it cannot happen > > On the contrary, unless you can persuade Sendmail, Microsoft, > Lotus to take > notice of you your project is dead on arrival. you only need to convince one, the rest will adopt if not to do so will leave them unable to connect > > > > this is a research group. we should research and then make > > recommendations > > This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. > The scope is > control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. > > BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is > wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible. Please re read my original post I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words pull *IS* smtp with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED > > You don't seem to be very aware of IETF history, but backwards > compatibility > and support for legacy systems has a huge premium. Forget persuading > Microsoft, you are not going to persuade the IESG the need for a > discontinuous change. > > > IF the industry did decide to change the email protocol in a > fundamental way > any new protocol would be based on the Web Services framework. fundamental change ? again I refer you to my original mail take a close look at the comparison (steps involved) between current and proposed > > > Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:02:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01991 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fm-0000qz-Hs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQN2E2E003269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fm-0000oz-0I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:14 -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 SAA01924 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8fi-0006JB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8fi-0006J5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8fZ-0000ch-Kx; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8f8-0000bU-VA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:34 -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 SAA01903 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8f6-0006Gb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:32 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8f4-0006GT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:01:31 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A8FE60E85; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:31:28 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Bill Cole" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 09:35:13 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > It seems so to me. RSS is strictly a client-initiated pull system. In > essence it is a layer of XML metadata describing resources which are > primarily transferred via HTTP at the request of the client. > To get a RSS "notification system" up and running to replace bulk email would require a huge investment You would have to get every one to load a seperate application to their machine to monitor the rss feeds or hope they log on to their secured RSS fed web page, and who would host these fed pages? And why would a webmaster like myself turn to a system like that? I know I would not, at the most I would implemented it beside my normal mail system. and then send an e-mail message "please look at your RSS feed new info is available" Isn't it better to try and fix what everyone already has if you can do it without requesting that the masses learn a new program then thats the way we should move So whether it be a pull system or a dns based sender verification system (which pull is without the structural changes) or some new sender identification system. As long as it enables people to continue using the software they have familiarised themselves with. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:08:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02716 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lS-0001Jr-81 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQN85NG005057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lR-0001JN-N5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:05 -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 SAA02637 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8lO-0006QF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8lO-0006QB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lN-0001DX-DW; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8kU-000103-1A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:06 -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 SAA02504 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8kR-0006Ot-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:03 -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 1AP8kQ-0006OU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:02 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ0081VESRZV@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:05:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC531A9.4050007@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>>this is a research group. we should research and then make >>>recommendations >> >>This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. >>The scope is >>control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. >> >>BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is >>wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible. > > > Please re read my original post > I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words > pull *IS* smtp > with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny > both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED > The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be answered before going into minute details of implementation. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:08:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02733 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lS-0001KH-Iy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQN861r005083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lR-0001JW-Sc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:05 -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 SAA02640 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8lP-0006QI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8lO-0006QC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lO-0001EP-Kt; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP8l9-0001A5-L7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:47 -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 SAA02576 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8l6-0006Pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:44 -0500 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8l6-0006P2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:44 -0500 Received: from ([10.40.1.80]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:27:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Bill Cole'" Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 17:27:46 -0500 Status: O > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:33 PM > To: Bill Cole > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > Can we connect the two: can mailing lists be distributed via > RSS, with > an ability to receive them in an MUA, and ability to respond > to them via > email. Sure. There are several RSS aggregators available (commercial and non-commercial) that allow one to receive and even respond to RSS feeds from within an MUA. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:09:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02876 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8mR-0001hF-UK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQN977x006515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8mR-0001h0-JB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:07 -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 SAA02821 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8mO-0006Rd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8mO-0006Ra-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8mL-0001az-Sf; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP8lh-0001Wi-OX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:21 -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 SAA02685 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP8le-0006Qv-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:18 -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 1AP8ld-0006PX-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:08:18 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ005PZEWB8G@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:07:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Bill Cole , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC53229.6000509@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>It seems so to me. RSS is strictly a client-initiated pull system. In >>essence it is a layer of XML metadata describing resources which are >>primarily transferred via HTTP at the request of the client. >> > > > To get a RSS "notification system" up and running to replace bulk email > would require a huge investment > > You would have to get every one to load a seperate application to their > machine to monitor the rss feeds > or hope they log on to their secured RSS fed web page, and who would host > these fed pages? > We are not talking about a notification system, rather we are talking about having the *bulk* email content for things like mailing lists delivered via RSS itself. A person would have a plug-in for his MUA that checks periodically just like POP3 and have the option to reply via email (Paul Judge mentioned in a different thread that these programs already exist). Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:29:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04163 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP95q-0002JA-Nu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNTAAe008873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP95q-0002J2-HR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:10 -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 SAA04135 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP95n-0006in-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP95n-0006ik-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP95h-0002Gf-MF; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP95Y-0002Fw-4u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:52 -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 SAA04093 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP95V-0006hv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:49 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP95U-0006hs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQNSnGU031601; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:49 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQNSnhC023774; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:49 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNSmoO023769; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems Message-ID: <20031126232848.GA16419@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> <20031126220035.GA26584@thyrsus.com> <3FC5250B.4000304@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC5250B.4000304@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > Would that mean that the MUAs have to be matched to the user agent of > the filters of the MTA that they use? Not necessarily. The actual goal is to allow you to keep a local reputation database of filters. > What about a spammer forging the header coming from the filter? Policy issue. You may decide you only want to trust endorsements generated locally, but the standard header would still be very useful even so. Suppose for example, that I have a milter that extracts certain header features indicative of forgery that would be invisible to an exclusively token-oriented Bayesian filter. Then what I'd want the milter to do is say this: Filtered-By: forgerfinder-1.0@thyrsus.com:bogus-trace=yes; Then the Bayesian filter would be able to "see" the forgery. Forging these reputation headers would be a criminal offense under CAN-SPAM. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:43:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04527 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JN-0003GD-2C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNh8lF012498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JM-0003FD-JZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -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 SAA04499 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006s0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006ro-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JH-00035S-3l; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9IP-0002z5-6R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:09 -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 SAA04487 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IM-0006rT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:06 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IL-0006rN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:05 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id D9C8C633F7; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:12:03 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111321E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:48 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the > transactional and permission based message empirically. So a spam filter > knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders > authorized for that express purpose. > > Phill > Can I enquire as to whom you work for, you seem to have a purpose in your comments _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:43:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04526 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JM-0003FZ-QT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNh8sV012482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JM-0003FC-HK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -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 SAA04502 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006s1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006rl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JH-00035z-Mt; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9IQ-0002zA-BL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:10 -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 SAA04491 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IN-0006rZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:07 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IM-0006rQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:06 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D4EB62A41; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:12:05 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Cc: "Chris" , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3FC50127.3090803@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:50 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > HOWEVER, on a related note, having a standard labeling system might help > for interoperability between different systems. This is something that > perhaps we should expand into. > > Yakov I agree, if all messaging systems be they push or pull have a common standard it would greatly reduce the implementation cost by all I include e-mail, rss, news, instant messaging systems (ICQ Yahoo etc.) and of course http there has already been a lot of work done in these areas so why re-invent the wheel Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:43:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04550 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JN-0003GE-2z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNh8tq012517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JM-0003FG-Ni for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -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 SAA04505 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JJ-0006s4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006rp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JF-00033z-W4; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP9IM-0002yv-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:06 -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 SAA04481 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IJ-0006rF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:03 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9II-0006r7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:02 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DFB764FCF; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:12:01 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Walter Dnes" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:46 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass > mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from > under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing > will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore > thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal > usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. > > -- This sounds strikingly similar to the http push er push of a few years ago. remember everyone would have an "active desktop" and news and stories of interest would be pushed to the user. Does any one remember how successful that was? the "http push" was in fact a pull system, the user would pull on to his desktop feeds (RSS) from their favourite sources if it failed then, what's changed ? Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Walter Dnes > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:55 AM > To: ASRG list > Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and > change to RSS > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:33:23AM +1030, Chris wrote > > > In my preferred implementation of a pull system some additional > steps are > > added.. > > > > 1/ sender connects to smtp host machine > > 2/ senders host accepts mail from sender (usually authenticated) > > 3/ senders host contacts recipients host machine > > 3a/ senders host sends mail waiting command (pull request) > > 3b/ recipients host acknowledges receipt of mail waiting command with a > > unique message identifier. > > 3c/ senders host queues message tagged with ID > > 4/ recipients host processes request and can apply filtering algorithms > > based on recipients personal preferences > > 4a/ recipients host contacts senders host with unique identifier, thus > > authenticating sender. > > 4b/ recipients host issues a message accepted or denied command > (with the > > reason) > > 4c/ if accepted mail is forwarded to recipients host machine > > 5/ receiver connects to his smtp host machine and uploads mail > > > > > > You will notice that for the sender and receiver the process is > unchanged. > > This appears very similar to "Insta-kiss" or "E-card" operations. "You > have email from an anonymous admirer. Click on > http://www.bad.example.com/mystery-admirer to find out...". Just as > those are open to abuse, so is your system. > > Secondly, RSS already handles mailing lists better than mailing lists. > This brings me to make my own proposal... end all mailing lists as we > know them, and change over to RSS, or something similar (e.g. moderated > internal newsgroups). Mailing lists were originally set up in a "kinder > gentler" internet. Today they are being abused by spammers using > euphemisms like "permission-based", etc. The fringe spammers are > illegal now, even without the "(Yes, you) CAN SPAM" act. What worries > me are the "respectable" spammers, aka "mainsleaze" who are perfectly > free to blast away now. > Walter Dnes > Email users are divided into two classes; > 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking > 2) Those who wish they did > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:43:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04531 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JN-0003GF-3E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNh89A012512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JM-0003FE-Lr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -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 SAA04506 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JJ-0006s3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006rm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JF-00033r-HK; Wed, 26 Nov 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 1AP9IL-0002yq-P5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:06 -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 SAA04477 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9II-0006rA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:02 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9II-0006r6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:02 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 42797650E2; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:11:59 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Claus Assmann" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20031126172415.GA14610@zardoc.esmtp.org> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:44 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > 220 TAGS ADV UBE UCE ... > > (more eloquent taggings systems have been proposed) > and then those tags can be used in the "MAIL" command: > > MAIL From: TAGS=ADV > > such that the MTA can reject the mail (at MAIL or RCPT stage) > based on the tags. > > Well, it's probably wishful thinking that spammers would do > this even if they use the "ADV" Subject tagging. > I agree with the last statement Any system really has to be a combination of a technical solution backed by legislative punch so a technical system that enables a spammer to be traced i.e. sender verification PLUS a legal system that can take action against someone who fails to apply the correct tags. of course spammers will then move offshore (china etc.) out of legal reach but with sender verification (ie pull :) they can simply be dropped by the message transport system so aren't a problem will that stop all legitimate mail from those outside countries ? possibly, but this could then force them to adopt a similar system, removing a safe haven for spammers. until there is nowhere on earth safe for a spammer :) Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:43:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04528 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JL-0003F9-V7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNh7jQ012461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JL-0003Eu-NE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:07 -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 SAA04496 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006ru-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9JI-0006rn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9JG-00034v-Ir; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:43:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9IN-0002z0-Se for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:08 -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 SAA04484 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IK-0006rM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:04 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9IK-0006rG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:42:04 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id A490865135; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:12:02 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20031126145831.GB21332@thyrsus.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:47 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > Yes. These are the categories CAN-SPAM describes as "transactional and > relationship" mail. They are explicitly exempted from the labelling > requirement. That's a relief, so if someone is designated as "opt-in" does not need a label on mail sent to them the problem there is that I get tons of Spam "CLAIMING" I have opted in When I know I haven't, because I use individual e-mail addresses for each list I do "opt in" for How do you prove you didn't opt in? so that the law could be enforced. And when reading the fine print for most opt-ins it usually says something like I accept receiving mail from this organisation and any affiliated organisations Q/ What is an affiliated organisation ? A/ any one they sell their e-mail list to. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 18:49:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04724 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9PG-0003y9-4w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNnEO3015256 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9PF-0003xz-Sk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:13 -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 SAA04708 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9PC-0006xj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9PC-0006xg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9P3-0003uB-28; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9OL-0003tC-Rg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:17 -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 SAA04691 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9OI-0006xR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9OI-0006xO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQNmEGU031763; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQNmEhC007863; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQNmEN7007861; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Chris Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031126234814.GA4848@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031126145831.GB21332@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:48:14 -0500 Status: O Chris : > How do you prove you didn't opt in? so that the law could be enforced. This is a normal repudiation problem; the law deals with these with respect to conventional mail and contracts all the time. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:03:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05224 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9cj-0004JP-99 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR039fP016569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9cj-0004JA-4g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:09 -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 TAA05173 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9cf-0007C8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9cf-0007C5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9cb-0004Gn-E4; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9bx-0004FO-8n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:21 -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 TAA05167 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9bt-0007Bm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:18 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9bt-0007Bj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:17 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id D448B617FD; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:32:14 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Chris" Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3FC531A9.4050007@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:35:59 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be > answered before going into minute details of implementation. > As mentioned previously one mans spam is another mans fodder for me its not a question of stemming spam, its a question of giving control to the recipient, and taking it from the sender. this can only be done if both a legislative and technical approach be used We need to be able to identify the sender, and punish them if they step outside of acceptable policies A classification system or can spam or pics. Whatever is enshrined into law. identification is a technical step punishment is a legal one so if we can agree on this, then what is the next step? Again in my opinion it is to find a system that can be implemented without disruption to the masses. Sender verification can be achieved in many ways. Which is the best and easiest to implement? I don't doubt that regardless of Phill's comments if a vendor can help reduce the impact of spam in a co-ordinated (interoperable) way they will very quickly come aboard would you as a vendor want to be seen as the one NOT combatting spam? Regards Chris P.S. How many spammers do you think would continue to do so if they could be readily identified. 5% 50% 100%? I only know of a handful of spammers that have come out of the closet. most hide behind fake email addresses or international borders. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:06:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05315 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fZ-0004Zd-Ba for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0659b017569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fZ-0004YI-5V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:05 -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 TAA05286 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fV-0007Ef-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fV-0007EZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fV-0004Rg-Om; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fT-0004RF-0z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:59 -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 TAA05268 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fP-0007EA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:55 -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 1AP9fP-0007Dd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00FEDHIAVL@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:03:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC53F64.90903@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Reminder about the announce list Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:03:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O As a reminder to everyone, the ASRG also maintains a low-traffic announce list. Information can be found at: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_mailing_list_information.htm Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:06:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05330 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fZ-0004Zm-Cr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0654k017583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fZ-0004YR-5T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:05 -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 TAA05283 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fV-0007Ec-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fV-0007EW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fW-0004Ro-9f; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9fT-0004RK-7Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:59 -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 TAA05271 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9fP-0007ED-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:55 -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 1AP9fP-0007Dd-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00JE8HKLQR@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:05:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Standard Headers for Anti-Spam Systems In-reply-to: <20031126232848.GA16419@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC53FB5.3040505@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200311261350.hAQDoHZx015724@snark.thyrsus.com> <200311261442.hAQEgpCA088104@nic-naa.net> <20031126144546.GA21332@thyrsus.com> <20031126164629.GE16434@iridium.mv.net> <3FC50C6B.7000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031126204618.GB436@iridium.mv.net> <3FC5150C.4060602@solidmatrix.com> <20031126213547.GH436@iridium.mv.net> <20031126220035.GA26584@thyrsus.com> <3FC5250B.4000304@solidmatrix.com> <20031126232848.GA16419@thyrsus.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, 26 Nov 2003 19:05:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich : >>What about a spammer forging the header coming from the filter? > > > Policy issue. You may decide you only want to trust endorsements generated > locally, but the standard header would still be very useful even so. > > Suppose for example, that I have a milter that extracts certain header > features indicative of forgery that would be invisible to an > exclusively token-oriented Bayesian filter. Then what I'd want the milter > to do is say this: > > Filtered-By: forgerfinder-1.0@thyrsus.com:bogus-trace=yes; > > Then the Bayesian filter would be able to "see" the forgery. > > Forging these reputation headers would be a criminal offense under CAN-SPAM. Would someone be willing to volunteer to write up an evaluation document following the checklist in the end of the following draft (section 6.1): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:09:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05433 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9iS-00056o-I6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR094pk019632 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9iS-00056Z-Cr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:04 -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 TAA05399 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9iP-0007Hc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9iO-0007HZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9iP-00054N-QF; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9hZ-000526-In for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:08:09 -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 TAA05393 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9hW-0007HO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:08:06 -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 1AP9hV-0007Gm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:08:05 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00FMWHN4VL@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:06:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC54010.4090407@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 19:06:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>HOWEVER, on a related note, having a standard labeling system might help >>for interoperability between different systems. This is something that >>perhaps we should expand into. >> >>Yakov > > > I agree, if all messaging systems be they push or pull have a common > standard it would greatly reduce the implementation cost > > by all I include e-mail, rss, news, instant messaging systems (ICQ Yahoo > etc.) and of course http > > there has already been a lot of work done in these areas > > so why re-invent the wheel > > Would someone be willing to work on an evalution document for pull-vs-push, and on the idea of a common labeling system? The checklist can be found in the end of the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:18:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05882 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9rE-0005fe-7m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0I8lG021780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9rD-0005f9-Aa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:07 -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 TAA05867 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9rB-0007SH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9rB-0007SD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9r7-0005Xp-76; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9qY-0005XP-HL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:26 -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 TAA05850 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9qW-0007Ri-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:25 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9qW-0007Rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:24 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id F3B0C61C25; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:47:22 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3FC54010.4090407@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:51:07 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > Would someone be willing to work on an evalution document for > pull-vs-push, and on the idea of a common labeling system? The checklist > can be found in the end of the following draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt > I would be happy to be on a working group for this purpose I must confess that I know only a small subset of the current system enough for me to write my own bulk emailer. ;)( for my opt in customers!!!! ) not enough to write my own sendmail, but I am researching this. As such I would not be authoritive enough to do the job alone Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com > [mailto:yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com]On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:37 AM > To: Chris > Cc: esr@thyrsus.com; Jon Kyme; ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) > > > Chris wrote: > >>HOWEVER, on a related note, having a standard labeling system might help > >>for interoperability between different systems. This is something that > >>perhaps we should expand into. > >> > >>Yakov > > > > > > I agree, if all messaging systems be they push or pull have a common > > standard it would greatly reduce the implementation cost > > > > by all I include e-mail, rss, news, instant messaging systems (ICQ Yahoo > > etc.) and of course http > > > > there has already been a lot of work done in these areas > > > > so why re-invent the wheel > > > > > Yakov > > > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" > ------- > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:18:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05897 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9rE-0005fd-7Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0I89n021782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9rD-0005fA-U9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:07 -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 TAA05870 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9rB-0007SK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9rB-0007SE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9r7-0005Xy-L5; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9qp-0005XZ-GV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:43 -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 TAA05853 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9qn-0007Rp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:42 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9qn-0007Rm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:41 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D66CAFAA4 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FC52A36.5050500@solidmatrix.com> References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> <3FC51078.5070801@solidmatrix.com> <3FC52A36.5050500@solidmatrix.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 19:17:31 -0500 Status: O At 5:33 PM -0500 11/26/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Bill Cole wrote: > >>At 3:43 PM -0500 11/26/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>>Bill Cole wrote: >>>>At 5:04 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bruce Stephens wrote: >>>>>Bill Cole writes: >.... >>>If complete consent control can be created in email, with the >>>sender in charge at all times, then that would solve spam, since >>>the sender must actively subscribe to something to receive it. >>>That is one of the motiviations behind pull systems, where a >>>hybrid approach of push and pull is used. >> >> >>I think that pull systems are less 'email' the more purely they >>follow 'pull' models. The example of the blogging universe >>predominantly using RSS as the means of content providers getting >>material to readers rather than the traditional mailing list with >>all of its clunkiness is a good sign. >> >>Email may be the 'killer app' of the Internet that can be made to >>do everything, but it is not designed to do everything well, and it >>may simply be time to start narrowing what email is allowed to do >>in order to push the traffic into more suitable media: many-way >>discussions to NNTP, serial broadcast to RSS. > >Can we connect the two: can mailing lists be distributed via RSS, >with an ability to receive them in an MUA, and ability to respond to >them via email. 'Can' is a fuzzy word. I am sure that such things are possible, but I am not familiar with any particular implementations. After all, the 90's brought us single clients that handle SMTP, POP3, IMAP, and NNTP so seamlessly that many people have no concept of news and mail being different things or of the fact that there are different protocols involved in sending and receiving mail. The place to look for how people are using RSS and creating end-user tools for it is in the blogging world. I am not familiar with all the available tools, but since Mr. Judge says that MUA-integrated aggregators exist and it seems a natural integration, I assume that they do. This is really getting back to what some people (including me) have been saying for a long time: the solution to spam cannot come from more engineering, because the problem is not a technical one. Restricting broadcast email (by which I mean messages sent via SMTP) is not all that difficult, and there are working examples of systems that do an extremely effective job of it. Unfortunately, broadcast email is not currently all spam, so whacking broadcast email altogether would be a bad thing. If the *social* change can be effected of getting non-spammers who now use SMTP for broadcasting to use other available mechanisms like RSS, the technical aspects of eliminating the spam (i.e. all broadcast email that can't migrate to RSS or some other pure-pull mechanism) are not quite trivial, but are certainly straightforward. Bringing in another subthread to this: the advantage of ordaining RSS as the preferred protocol/medium for one-way or heavily asymmetric broadcasting (i.e. most marketing and news materials) as well as for guided/led/facilitated discussions (i.e. like most weblogs that take reader comments) and NNTP as the preferred mode for multi-way ownerless discussion group is that unlike the approach of building an all-new mail protocol or hacking more extensions onto SMTP, there isn't a new protocol needing a flag day, and early adopters can get a benefit. As proof, note that we have people making the move away from SMTP mail NOW because of the fallout from the spam wars. Spamcop runs a news server, not a listserver. Blog sites offer users updates via RSS, not email notification. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:24:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06087 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9wy-0006BU-Li for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0O4E8023766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9wy-0006BF-Fb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:04 -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 TAA06071 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9ww-0007WC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9ww-0007W9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9wv-00067O-9d; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP9wX-00066b-7q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:37 -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 TAA06066 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9wV-0007W2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:35 -0500 Received: from kanga.nu ([157.22.12.214]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP9wU-0007Vz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:35 -0500 Received: from dhcp-66-212-193-197.myeastern.com ([66.212.193.197]:61253 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1AP9wT-0004g9-2Z; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:23:33 -0800 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AP9wR-0002FZ-00; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:31 -0500 To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: Chris , Bill Cole , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Message from Yakov Shafranovich of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:21 EST." <3FC53229.6000509@solidmatrix.com> References: <3FC53229.6000509@solidmatrix.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <8652.1069892611@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:23:31 -0500 Status: O On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:21 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > We are not talking about a notification system, rather we are talking > about having the *bulk* email content for things like mailing lists > delivered via RSS itself. A person would have a plug-in for his MUA > that checks periodically just like POP3 and have the option to reply > via email (Paul Judge mentioned in a different thread that these > programs already exist). To state the obvious, this requires IP connectivity between the feed site and the consumer, something that is frequently enough not true currently. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:31:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06373 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA3l-0006c1-Mn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0V5k5025411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA3l-0006bk-Gp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:05 -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 TAA06347 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA3j-0007dt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA3j-0007dp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA3h-0006XU-Hj; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA3T-0006Ws-1j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:47 -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 TAA06334 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA3R-0007dQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:45 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA3Q-0007dJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:44 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hAR0Uhqm008036; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:30:44 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113226@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , esr@thyrsus.com Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) 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, 26 Nov 2003 16:30:43 -0800 Status: O > > What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the > > transactional and permission based message empirically. So > a spam filter > > knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders > > authorized for that express purpose. > > > > Phill > > > > > Can I enquire as to whom you work for, you seem to have a > purpose in your comments It shouldn't be too difficult to find out. Look at my email address. I am the Principal Scientist. My customers include 85,000 Internet merchants who use our payment services, they end up bearing the loss of spammer phishing expeditions. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:32:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06407 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA4i-0006lE-2I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0W48g025982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA4h-0006jx-SN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:03 -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 TAA06393 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA4g-0007fu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA4f-0007fr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA4g-0006hO-38; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APA4F-0006gG-G4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:35 -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 TAA06371 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APA4D-0007eJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:33 -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 1APA4D-0007dq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:31:33 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00JEZIQ7QR@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:30:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, Jon Kyme , ASRG Message-id: <3FC54592.3080208@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 19:30:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>Would someone be willing to work on an evaluation document for >>pull-vs-push, and on the idea of a common labeling system? The checklist >>can be found in the end of the following draft: >> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt >> > > > I would be happy to be on a working group for this purpose > > I must confess that I know only a small subset of the current system > enough for me to write my own bulk emailer. ;)( for my opt in > customers!!!! ) > > not enough to write my own sendmail, but I am researching this. > > As such I would not be authoritive enough to do the job alone > > Regards > Chris > > If sufficient interest exists and the idea is a viable, we can make a subgroup for this. Currently, lets see who is interested in participating on the evaluation document. If you wish, you can start working on a draft, and have the others join in. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:45:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06722 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAHK-0007gG-SW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0j6fF029518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAHK-0007g1-ND for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:06 -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 TAA06676 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:44:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAHJ-0007nC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAHI-0007n9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAHG-0007dd-8W; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAGI-0007d5-Im for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:44:02 -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 TAA06656 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:43:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAGG-0007mV-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:44:00 -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 1APAGG-0007mG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:44:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00C98JCEGI@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:43:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Bill Cole Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC548AE.3030101@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <80ptfff4dx.fsf@isode.com> <3FC51078.5070801@solidmatrix.com> <3FC52A36.5050500@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, 26 Nov 2003 19:43:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bill Cole wrote: > > This is really getting back to what some people (including me) have been > saying for a long time: the solution to spam cannot come from more > engineering, because the problem is not a technical one. Restricting > broadcast email (by which I mean messages sent via SMTP) is not all that > difficult, and there are working examples of systems that do an > extremely effective job of it. Unfortunately, broadcast email is not > currently all spam, so whacking broadcast email altogether would be a > bad thing. If the *social* change can be effected of getting > non-spammers who now use SMTP for broadcasting to use other available > mechanisms like RSS, the technical aspects of eliminating the spam (i.e. > all broadcast email that can't migrate to RSS or some other pure-pull > mechanism) are not quite trivial, but are certainly straightforward. > > Bringing in another subthread to this: the advantage of ordaining RSS as > the preferred protocol/medium for one-way or heavily asymmetric > broadcasting (i.e. most marketing and news materials) as well as for > guided/led/facilitated discussions (i.e. like most weblogs that take > reader comments) and NNTP as the preferred mode for multi-way ownerless > discussion group is that unlike the approach of building an all-new mail > protocol or hacking more extensions onto SMTP, there isn't a new > protocol needing a flag day, and early adopters can get a benefit. As > proof, note that we have people making the move away from SMTP mail NOW > because of the fallout from the spam wars. Spamcop runs a news server, > not a listserver. Blog sites offer users updates via RSS, not email > notification. > > Do you think that we can get some folks together and produce an evaluation document outlining the pros and cons? This would be very useful for further discussion. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 19:58:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07195 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APATx-0008Tr-4Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR0w9gC032593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APATw-0008Tc-Uw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:09 -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 TAA07173 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:57:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APATv-0000DZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APATu-0000DW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APATp-0008Q6-FD; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAT0-0008PG-30 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:57:10 -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 TAA07142 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APASy-0000CD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:57:08 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APASx-0000C4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:57:07 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0916065287; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:27:05 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "David Maxwell" , "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20031126185505.GF17282@mail> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 11:30:50 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > One significant difference in a pull infrastructure is feedback. > > In the current SMTP 'push' model, the sender has no indication of > whether a message was read or discarded. > > In a 'pull' model, the sender knows that the message was refused, > because it was never picked up. Yes. this is an huge advantage to legitimate senders. currently "bounced" messages are virtually useless. > > To me this raises some interesting questions. > > 1) Will a spammer stop trying to send spam to a domain that always > refuses his spam? (negative feedback) > possibly why continue if it is never going to arrive currently spammers simply ignore such bounces(IMHO). > 2) Does this feedback help the spammer (i.e. reformat spam if he > suspects Bayes caught it...) (informative property of feedback) I have considered the possibility. that is why I believe this sort of system or any other can only work in conjunction with a legislative approach. But in my variation of pull the deny message would be very limited i.e. 1/ no classification header - should be fixed (an honest error?) 2/ unacceptable origin - gives the sender the chance to find out why. perhaps they have been incorrectly blacklisted. 3/ no such mailbox exists - delete the recipient from your list they have moved on 4/ unacceptable classification - the mail falls into the recipients "don't accept" category With the latter the sender may choose to falsify the classification. this is where legislation must step in. > > 3) How long must my server hold mail for you to pick it up? (balance of > burdens) Because in my pull variation the decision to accept or deny is host server based (not pop3) the decision should be forthcoming within moments. under normal systems a timeout period applies for undeliverable mail I can see no reason for this to change remember it doesn't have to wait till the recipient logs on to get his mail (which could be weeks/months) Also the burden of storage is shifted from the recipient to the sender in the case of a bulk mailing this is much more efficient only one copy requires to be maintained when there may be many thousands of recipients in the case of personalised mailouts the mail could be generated when the accept is received this would also be a saving of resources for the sender and as a sender of bulk mail I sometimes get bounces as "users mailbox is full" I often wonder whether their box is just full of spam / virii or simply abandoned with less accepted spam this is less likeley to occur > Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 20:29:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08065 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAxx-00029s-CL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR1T9b4008290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAxx-00029d-7e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:09 -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 UAA08056 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAxv-0000Zw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAxu-0000Zt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAxp-00027T-Sj; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APAxg-00027C-TD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:52 -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 UAA08053 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAxe-0000Zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APAxd-0000Zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:28:50 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-018.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.18]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id AE307649B3; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:58:45 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113226@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Importance: Normal 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, 27 Nov 2003 12:02:31 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > It shouldn't be too difficult to find out. Look at my email address. > I am the Principal Scientist. Phill I didnt see that. sorry (I have to click on properties to get at it) No wonder you are following your line Verisign/Microsoft has a lot of vested interest in this field I am led to believe a lot of effort was spent on creating a "certificate" system for e-mail Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 11:01 AM > To: 'Chris'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; esr@thyrsus.com > Cc: 'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'; Jon Kyme; ASRG > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) > > > > > What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the > > > transactional and permission based message empirically. So > > a spam filter > > > knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders > > > authorized for that express purpose. > > > > > > Phill > > > > > > > > > Can I enquire as to whom you work for, you seem to have a > > purpose in your comments > > 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 Wed Nov 26 20:53:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08616 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBL7-0003Kz-ID for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR1r5Zr012823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBL7-0003Kk-E6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:05 -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 UAA08607 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBL5-0000o0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBL4-0000nx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBL3-0003IY-1J; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBKA-0003I6-3c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:52:06 -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 UAA08598 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBK7-0000nl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:52:03 -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 1APBK7-0000ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:52:03 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-729.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.201.113]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HOZ00E1HMFSM9@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:50:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , ASRG Message-id: <3FC55853.4090409@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 26 Nov 2003 20:50:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>It shouldn't be too difficult to find out. Look at my email address. >>I am the Principal Scientist. > > > Phill I didnt see that. sorry (I have to click on properties to get at it) > > No wonder you are following your line > > Verisign/Microsoft has a lot of vested interest in this field > > I am led to believe a lot of effort was spent on creating a "certificate" > system for e-mail > The Microsoft/AOL effort is described here: http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16400308 Digital keys are used, not certificates since certificates are too big to fit into DNS. This has been covered in a different thread last week. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 21:22:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09158 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBnH-0004Wd-39 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR2MBre017389 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBnG-0004WN-Sn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:10 -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 VAA09146 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBnE-00014n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBnD-00014k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBn7-0004U3-OW; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APBn1-0004Tn-DT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:55 -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 VAA09136 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBmy-00014R-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:52 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APBmx-00014O-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:52 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A577AFB97 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:48 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8652.1069892611@kanga.nu> References: <3FC53229.6000509@solidmatrix.com> <8652.1069892611@kanga.nu> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 26 Nov 2003 21:21:45 -0500 Status: O At 7:23 PM -0500 11/26/03, J C Lawrence imposed structure on a stream of electrons, yielding: >On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:07:21 -0500 >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> We are not talking about a notification system, rather we are talking >> about having the *bulk* email content for things like mailing lists >> delivered via RSS itself. A person would have a plug-in for his MUA >> that checks periodically just like POP3 and have the option to reply >> via email (Paul Judge mentioned in a different thread that these >> programs already exist). > >To state the obvious, this requires IP connectivity between the feed >site and the consumer, something that is frequently enough not true >currently. True. The 2 common cases that come to my mine would be: 1. Intermittent connectivity. In this situation users would do essentially what they do now with intermittent connectivity for newsgroup access: connect to pull the current RSS file and connect to pull whatever content they want or sent any comments/replies. 2. Disjoint connectivity, i.e. behind a strong firewall. In this case the RSS updates could be proxied in the same way as web access is proxied in such environments. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Nov 26 22:38:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10573 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APCyq-0007TK-IB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR3cCb6028716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APCyq-0007T5-83 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:12 -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 WAA10562 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APCym-0001pe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APCym-0001pb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APCyf-0007Qo-HI; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APCyQ-0007Na-KP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:37:46 -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 WAA10556 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APCyN-0001pA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:37:43 -0500 Received: from mail018.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APCyM-0001oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:37:42 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail018.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAR3b9v05703 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:37:11 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1APCxl-0006Uj-00; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:37:05 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: Yakov Shafranovich , Dag Kihlman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: John R Levine , asrg@ietf.org References: <002c01c3b445$43e155d0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <3FC511C3.1000506@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC511C3.1000506@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311271438.20283.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, 27 Nov 2003 14:38:20 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:49, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > If sufficient interest exists in this, than we will consider making a > subgroup for this effort. If such a sub-group were created, I would participate in it (or at least actively monitor it). I believe it makes sense for such a group to exist, just as it makes sense for the RMX-proposals subgroup to exist. Where the RMX proposals attack the problem of validating the sender's fact-claims, a "transport" subgroup can attack the problem of ensuring an appropriate level of recipient control over the mail transfer process. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 02:45:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29070 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APGqC-0002iv-OJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAR7jW1F010463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APGqB-0002if-UY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:31 -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 CAA29048 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APGq7-0004ZC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APGq7-0004Z7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APGpq-0002fQ-3a; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:45:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APGoz-0002a6-0o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:44:17 -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 CAA28966 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APGov-0004XL-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:44:13 -0500 Received: from bim1.netstar.fi ([194.197.204.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APGou-0004W4-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:44:12 -0500 Message-ID: <432138caa05409825fa2d071745ea34d3fc5c7bc@mhs> From: Jukka Inkeri X-Accept-Language: fi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <49313e5dc8e53c7a4362f55d1676bb643fc4f996@mhs> <3FC50CDC.4050903@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC50CDC.4050903@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and 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: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:43:40 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > Take a look at the LMAP, RMX, DMP, SPF proposals: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/documents.php?wg_abbrev=lmap I have read those proposal (quickly), but if I have understood correct, all those ideas based on domain attributes and define new attributes using domain database, not real net/ip checking using reverse dns attributes as I like todo, same way as all other security / access has mostly defined, ip based priviledges. This is only worldwide "trusted ip list". My idea is check senders ip and priviledges to use smtp, not reading protocol headers. My idea is control connection (ip) using reverse dns lookup database, not dns lookup. My proposal include also method to handle roaming mta. Reverse dns is mostly controlled by operators and "big companies", so we have less players as in domain structure and I believe that it is easier to make "operator blacklist" as domains. This idea is simple to add every access control level : firewall, proxies, filters, wrappers, smtp servers, ... Or if this idea was some of those proposal, then I have missed it. That is possible, because I'm novice in english and it's heavy job to read very formally made technical data. But that is my problem :). Proposal rMX using rDNS: http://www.awot.fi/sf/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx We have to define some smarter as filtering/rbl controlling system using current environment and maybe some more smarter in future. Spamming is growing up too fast. This rMX+rDNS method is very easy to build up. For our mail customers spamming is more huge problem as virus mails even we use also some spamstop methods. Virus filtering works allmost absolut (1 case / year), but spamfiltering only about 90%. -jukka- jukka do.t inkeri at awot do.t fi _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 10:17:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09862 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APNtZ-0005T3-1v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARFHTdq021013 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APNtY-0005Sq-Dx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:28 -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 KAA09824 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APNtW-0001SR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APNtV-0001SN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APNt8-0005OS-A5; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APNsD-0005Nz-E7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -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 KAA09713 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APNsB-0001QS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:16:03 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APNsA-0001QP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hARFFu9w026598; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:15:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:15:56 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113229@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz'" , bill.stewart@pobox.com, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] 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, 27 Nov 2003 07:15:56 -0800 Status: O > Do you have any more details on this for those who don't > normally follow DNSSEC? It is a sad story. Politics and the magic circle. If people are wondering why the major industry players have abandoned the IETF read on. This is only one example of the type, other companies have similar issues. When VeriSign bought Network Solutions one of the main opportunities we saw was to deploy DNSSEC. There is a limit to what you can achieve in the context of DNS, anyone can get a domain name without providing authentication so proving that someone is the legitimate holder of example.com does not mean you want to give them your credit card number. On the other hand it would be quite feasible to deploy a class 1 level assurance system with low cost and ubiquitous coverage. The problem with the DNSSEC specification is the NXT record that links from one signed zone to the next. In the original specification you have to create a link record for every single domain in the zone. This causes the amount of data in the zone to increase enormously. This is fine if you have a typical zone with a few hundred or thousand entries. It is a completely different matter if you are running the dotCOM zone and you have several Gb of zone data already, a contract that specifies a very highl level of reliability and a constant series of DDoS and other attacks going on (about 1000 penetration attempts per day). There is no way that the people with responsibility for running the dotCOM zone are going to deploy a system that has such an immediate effect on operations. The amount of data expands by an order of magnitude. So we proposed a fix. The original security review was performed by myself and Warwick Ford. Instead of linking between every record you only link from one secured zone to the next. This was called 'optin'. This has exactly the same security as the original proposal but the impact on deployment is much less. The cost of deployment scales with the number of people using DNSSEC. The only change in the security is that with OPTIN there is a diferent way that an attacker can perform an insertion attack, that is causing someone to believe a zone is registered when it is not. The attack is not very plausible and at the end of the day the only impact is that we are out the six bucks for the registration. Anyone can insert domains into dotCOM, just see a registrar. The objection to the idea was that this is a VeriSign problem and the WG had zero responsibility for creating a specification that was deployable by the operators of large zones which should not exist anyway. There was also a claim that there was a personality issue, that if proponents of OPTIN had adopted the correct position as a supplicant that their petition might have been considered more favorably. The evidence is against this, every time the go with the flow strategy was attempted the DNS people would call me up six months later and say 'we have been screwed again'. This was understood by virtually everyone in the DNSSEC working group. The chair disagreed. It was at this point that I discovered that the IETF is not open and not inclusive. Every time the working group agreed on OPTIN the specification would be taken on a detour. The first time for consultation in a closed committee called the DNS Directorate. To cut a long story short the plan was filibustered for three years and then after finally comming to last call. After passing last call without objection the chair scheduled two further last calls before we finally came to a result where a clear majority of the group were in favor, four fifths were either in favor or willing to allow it to go forward and two individuals were opposed. So the chair used his perogative to impose his 'consensus' on the group. The result is that OPTIN is on the experimental track, not a proposed standard as the clear consensus of the group was that it should be. This in turn means that it is far more difficult to persuade ICANN to allow deployment of the specification with its experimental status. The IETF was designed the way it is to allow a small clique to hold power while pretending to be open and inclusive. All that Nomcon gumpf is really designed to make it impossible for the nominating committee to make more than a few changes to the IESG each time arround. The result of this type of behaviour is that the IETF has practically no influence in the industry. DNSSEC and IPv6 have been 'about to deploy' for over a decade now. There is still no clue as to how IPSEC works in any application beyond VPN, which is not what it is designed for. SSL makes a better remote access VPN protocol than IPSEC, works through NAT boxes without kludges for a start. The other industry players have similar stories. The industry is taking notice of the ideas comming out of this WG. But they are not very likely to accept a standards process unless it is based on bi-weekly teleconference calls and all major decisions are subject to vote. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 10:39:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10875 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APOEU-0006Yn-AJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARFd6Xm025211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APOEU-0006YY-1P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:06 -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 KAA10864 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APOER-0001oM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APOER-0001oJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APOEP-0006Ux-65; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APOED-0006Um-7l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:38:49 -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 KAA10861 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APOEA-0001oF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:38:46 -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 1APOEA-0001oC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:38:46 -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 1APOJd-0003mO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:44:25 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:43:40 +0200." <432138caa05409825fa2d071745ea34d3fc5c7bc@mhs> 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:44:25 -0500 Status: O Jukka Inkeri wrote: > > Take a look at the LMAP, RMX, DMP, SPF proposals: ... > I have read those proposal (quickly), but if I have understood correct, > all those ideas based on domain attributes and define new attributes > using domain database, not real net/ip checking using reverse dns > attributes as I like todo, same way as all other security / access has > mostly defined, ip based priviledges. This is only worldwide "trusted ip > list". Then you completely missed the point of the proposals. None of them claim to have a "worldwide trusted IP list". Instead, they determine if a domain has authorized an MTA at an IP to use its name. That's a completely different problem than what you're talking about. > My idea is check senders ip and priviledges to use smtp, not reading > protocol headers. My idea is control connection (ip) using reverse dns > lookup database, not dns lookup. Which is substantially similar to the proposals listed above. See also the MTAMark proposal, which lists MTA's in in-addra.arpa Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 11:45:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12503 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APPGV-000111-CJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARGjFoV003897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APPGV-00010m-6u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:15 -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 LAA12481 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APPGU-0002Yq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APPGT-0002Yn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APPGH-0000yK-Vu; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APPFV-0000um-CN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:44:13 -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 LAA12475 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APPFU-0002Yg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:44:12 -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 1APPFT-0002Yd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:44:11 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-310.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP000CGWRSHS7@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:43:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX In-reply-to: To: Jukka Inkeri Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC629B4.9090008@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 27 Nov 2003 11:43:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Alan DeKok wrote: > Jukka Inkeri wrote: > >>>Take a look at the LMAP, RMX, DMP, SPF proposals: > > ... > See also the MTAMark proposal, which lists MTA's in in-addra.arpa > Copy can be found here: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/16/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt Many people prefer the LMAP proposals that deal with regular "forward" DNS than the MTA mark proposal that uses reverse DNS, because a usual domain owner has control over regular DNS and does not have control over reverse DNS. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 13:37:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14861 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APR0w-000669-8m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARIbHms023427 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APR0u-00065F-IB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:16 -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 NAA14850 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APR0s-0003ij-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APR0s-0003ig-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APR0f-0005yC-Jb; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APR0P-0005xg-KY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:36:45 -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 NAA14834 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APR0N-0003iG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:36:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APR0M-0003iC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:36:42 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer3.verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hARIae9w013447; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:36:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:36:40 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Jukka Inkeri Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX 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, 27 Nov 2003 10:36:39 -0800 Status: O >Many people prefer the LMAP proposals that deal with regular "forward" >DNS than the MTA mark proposal that uses reverse DNS, because a usual >domain owner has control over regular DNS and does not have control over >reverse DNS. Absolutely, reverse DNS has not been generally considered a critical infrastructure, nobody uses it today except for debugging. The zones are prefectly stable, the problem is that the information in those zones is not maintained by the IP block holders to a sufficiently high quality. The other practical problem is that there are machines with several hundred thousand email domains parked on one machine. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Nov 27 14:18:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15629 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APReQ-0007qz-N0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARJI6ZR030183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APReQ-0007qk-I9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:06 -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 OAA15611 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APReO-000471-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APReN-00046y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APReK-0007ny-Ny; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APRdt-0007nI-Bg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:33 -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 OAA15589 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APRdq-00046A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:30 -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 1APRdq-00045z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:30 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-310.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP000E1EYW6MA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:16:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC64DA2.3000505@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about JamSpam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:16:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hi, Does anyone on the list aware of the current status of the JamSpam consortium (www.jamspam.org). Please email me off-list with information. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 04:16:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19318 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APej1-0003ek-Ic for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAS9FhWj014053 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APej0-0003d8-Do for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:42 -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 EAA19302 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APeix-0005cq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APeix-0005cn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APeiO-0003ai-Uz; Fri, 28 Nov 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 1APehr-0003Zj-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:14:31 -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 EAA19292 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APeho-0005cc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:14:28 -0500 Received: from bim1.netstar.fi ([194.197.204.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APehn-0005bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:14:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jukka Inkeri X-Accept-Language: fi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:13:51 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Absolutely, reverse DNS has not been generally considered a critical > infrastructure, nobody uses it today except for debugging. Really ? I know that lot of ex. finnish ISP, companies, servers, .... use reverse checking before accept connections. Also us. Maybe not in every services. Ex. PARANOID flag is very much used in many services, wrappers, ... same way like phone numbers, if somebody don't like to tell that this number belongs to them, then we have nothing to say. We are not so interesting handle anonymous trafic. Ofcource reverse is only little thing but that tell something if you have not reverse info. > The zones are prefectly stable, the problem is that the information in those > zones is not maintained by the IP block holders to a sufficiently high > quality. Ex. in Europe I think that situation is not excellent, but good. Thanks for RIPE. Also every reverse domain has soa and there is ... > The other practical problem is that there are machines with several hundred > thousand email domains parked on one machine. How it's problem ? If we look server site, you can live just like today if you don't like to use this add-on posibilities. So this is not have to, this like all other security and so on, You can use it, if you like it. If you are mail sender and like to make connection to server which, use this kind of add-on checking, then you must update reverse information. Then this is have to properties for sender. Only last MTA need to update, not all clients. Only those MTA have to register which make connection outsite from your net. Something same has private net - public net, between those you have ex. NAT, some controlling, ..., I have thought something that we have some "routing" services - ip-packet - dns lookup - smtp protocol - ... In dns services we have some rules, what is possible, who can/must do something. Maybe we need same kind of rules also to other "routing" methods ? Most of services is point-to-point services and more simple to make rules. You can make it yourself. Smtp is routed services, ofcource last step is point-to-point. IP-network is structured, DNS is structured, smtp is not (yet). Original doc: http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/textdb/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx I wondering, if this kind of simple idea, not so much to do, it so hard to do, How we think about those drafts, ideas which are much more complicated, need software updates, ... Have those any posibilities to be accepted ? Most comments has handled that "oh no, so much work". Why have more problems with our networks ? Hmmm ... -jukka- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 06:33:04 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24176 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:33:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APgrg-0001gG-Aq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASBWmlW006456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APgrg-0001g3-5V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:48 -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 GAA24159 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APgrc-0000NL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APgrb-0000N3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APgqu-0001c3-Qr; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APgpz-0001aH-T7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:31:03 -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 GAA24136 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APgpv-0000JU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:30:59 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APgpu-0000JP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:30:58 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:30:51 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2249916578; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:30:50 -0500 Message-ID: <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:30:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov, I am seeing things or what? We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, but practically 100%. Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which basically says that the return path must be valid? I read the pros and cons in the PDF you provided to me. It didn't make sense to me (the CONS). As I noted to you via EMAIL, our system allows for programmable hooks at each step of the protocol state machine: connect --> connect IP validate hook HELO/EHLO ---> helo/ehlo validate hook MAIL FROM: ---> mail from validate hook RCPT TO: ---> recipient validation hook DATA: ---> mail filter validation hook (3rd party software hooks) We offer internal support for RBL at the connect level, restrict conformity to HELO/ECHO, local user validation at RCPT TO: and 3rd party hooks for the DATA level. Now we added WCSAP (Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol) to the MAIL FROM: state where the callerid verification takes place. I added additional logic to make it even stronger. If the CallerID verification process receives a 250 positive response in the RCPT TO: return path validation, the logic then goes a step further to check if the site is an open relay (see if will it accept any random address). For example, here is a snippet of a WCSAP callerid verification session for an incoming return path. This was spawned by our SMTP server once MAIL FROM: was issued by the remote MTA: 20031128 03:44 00006104 ------------------------------------- 20031128 03:44 00006104 version: 1.34 / 1.3 (wcSAP) 20031128 03:44 00006104 uid : 0 20031128 03:44 00006104 ip : 64.200.120.224 20031128 03:44 00006104 cdn : mx224.expts.biz 20031128 03:44 00006104 hdn : 20031128 03:44 00006104 from : 20031128 03:44 00006104 trying mx: mail.expts.biz ip: 64.119.222.7 20031128 03:44 00006104 # connecting to 64.119.222.7 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 220 Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: HELO localhost 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Hello, pleased to meet you. 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Sender OK 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 matthewwalker@mx224.expts.biz... Recipient OK. 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: <123sxa23@alqwejad.com> 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 123sxa23@alqwejad.com... Recipient OK. 20031128 03:44 00006104 * Open Relay site: 64.119.222.7 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: QUIT 20031128 03:44 00006101 SMTP response code: 552 20031128 03:44 00006104 wcsap finish 20031128 03:44 00006105 ------------------------------------- Notice how we get a positive on the return path and a positive on a random address. This means this site is an open relay. Without it, the spammer reaches the RCPT TO: state which in my opinion, is something you wish to minimize allowing spammers to reach as it helps in thier learning logics. Also, I read little about JAMSPAM. You probably discussed it already, but the technical standards should indicate and emphasis restrictions to the transports protocol is purely technical. EMAIL SYSTEMS invalid handshaking is all the IETF should be looking at to simplified this process. To go any further, simply will complicate things and give JAMSPAM proponents a reason to exist. Their layman argument is purely based on the legacy operations of the SMTP system. Imposed stronger state point handshaking and these people have no basis for argument other than "social." Unlike others I read in the group, this is a TECHNICAL problem. Not a social issue. The idea of "filtering the data" once the transport system has done its job, is purely a system level admistrative option and/or feature. This is akin to the FTP protocol. In our system, we offer a "Scan File" option once a file is uploaded, but this is an admin/customer issue. Has nothing to do with the protocol itself. The technical process must adhere to standards otherwise it (the session) is rejected. You want things to get moving, get the proposals that concentrate on the technical aspects of SMTP who do not have any association whatsoever with mail content or links to "databases" that could make for questionable non-technical restrictions. That shouldn't be an SMTP issue. The bottom line is that once a strict SMTP protocol is put in place, the SPAMMERS will have no choice but to comply because those are the secured technical rules. In my view, this will clean up the spammer problem in short order. They must comply from a technical standpoint. Period. It has nothing to with SPAM, really. In any case, we are going to finally WCSAP CallerId Verification in our Wildcat! mail system and go gamma with it next week to thousands of customers. Ironically, I already even have received a concern from a 3rd party Anti-Spam author saying "This is going to hurt our sales!" My response was simple: "non-conforming anonymous systems into the mail transport is now going to be a thing of the past. Mail from conforming systems will be allowed to pass thru which is where your product comes into play with its mail filtering techniques optionally offer to the system admin and for users of the system." The thing is, unless I am seeing things, with WCSAP, we are blocking nearly 100% of the darn spam! I have carefully looked at the looks for false positives. None! I'm sure that spammers will eventually "conform" to technical standards. In my view, from a SMTP standpoint, that is all the IETF and this working group should care about. As a mail processor/gateway developer for several networks over the last 25 years, I am firm believer in unaltered passthru of mail. In my view, it is unethical to a) restrict mail reaching its destination and b) modify it in any way. However, that has nothing to do with technical conformity. The handshaking process should be an identified process on both ends. On a similar note, the RMX/DNS solutions, etc, are essentially the same idea, but it requires DNS administration which in my view is going to be problematic in all aspects, technically, politically, including capitalistically (or communistically depending on your point of view). Because of this, it will be slow to catch on. However, one way to help the process is to include as part of the SMTP specification, a DNS registration process. This will force (encourage) developers to include a "registration" process as part of their SMTP software installation or setup process. This registration process can include other attributes, besides RMX related, such as "type of system." Is it open, closed (private) system? Does the system offer open spam, restricted spam, or no spam? etc. Of course, this extended attribute concept be implemented using EHLO, however, if we are going to require a modified MX DNS system, then we might as well add other attributes to it as well. A conforming client can use this information and help save at least 1/2 of the bandwidth. A client can also instantly inform a user or sender that the communication with a target system will be restricted in one form or another. Nonetheless, compared to a CallerID Verification concept, the extended DNS based solutions is going to be a slow and costly endeavor. In my view, Return Path callerid ID handshaking seems to be a very logical extension to the SMTP client/server handshaking process. In the current form of SMTP, it works fantastic. If we anticipate this is going to be a widely accepted practice for all developers (big, including small, a major plus reason why it will be accepted faster than a DNS based solution), then maybe we should look at reducing handshaking requirements to accomplish a callerid verification SMTP logic. Anyway, what at the flaws in a CallerId Verification that I am not seeing? Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 06:43:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24415 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APh1i-0002HE-6q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASBhAi2008749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APh1h-0002H2-W7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:10 -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 GAA24411 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APh1d-0000Xz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APh1d-0000Xw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APh1Z-0002Cf-Mb; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APh1A-0002CM-7e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:36 -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 GAA24408 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APh15-0000Xa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:31 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APh15-0000XR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:31 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:40 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2254224968; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:38 -0500 Message-ID: <005201c3b5a4$b1ee8a10$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Yakov, Here is an interesting WCSAP session: 20031128 06:25 0000631e ------------------------------------- 20031128 06:25 0000631e version: 1.36 / 1.35 20031128 06:25 0000631e uid : 0 20031128 06:25 0000631e ip : 62.73.34.162 20031128 06:25 0000631e cdn : palvelin.tomi-steel.fi 20031128 06:25 0000631e from : 20031128 06:25 0000631e rbl : 0 20031128 06:25 0000631e relay : 0 20031128 06:25 0000631e hdn : 20031128 06:25 0000631e trying mx: blackhole.theglobe.com ip: 127.0.0.2 20031128 06:25 0000631e # connecting to 127.0.0.2 20031128 06:25 0000631e S: 220 winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready 20031128 06:25 0000631e C: HELO localhost 20031128 06:25 0000631e S: 250 winserver.com, Pleased to meet you. 20031128 06:25 0000631e C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031128 06:25 0000631e S: 250 <>... Sender ok. 20031128 06:25 0000631e C: RCPT TO: 20031128 06:25 0000631e S: 250 ... Recipient ok 20031128 06:25 0000631e C: RCPT TO: <123sxa23@alqwejad.com> 20031128 06:25 0000631e S: 250 <123sxa23@alqwejad.com>... Recipient ok 20031128 06:25 0000631e * Open Relay site: 127.0.0.2 20031128 06:25 0000631e C: QUIT 20031128 06:25 0000631e result : -7 20031128 06:25 0000631e SMTP response code: 552 20031128 06:25 0000631e wcsap finish 20031128 06:25 00006323 ------------------------------------- I updated the code to pass "Relay Allow" information to the WCSAP session. This is passed on the remote MTA being allowed to route mail or not. In this, he is not allowed (Relay: 0). But he has a MX record that points to 127.0.0.2, which points back to my server. I already added logic to check for MX=127.0.0.1. But missed this one. I'm going to change it to do a 127.0.0.* mask check. But since it was a local connection, it came back into my server and the fake open relay address check returned a positive result. However, since he was not allowed to do relaying, a 552 response was sent back! So checking for open relay on a callerid verification pass, coupled with a "Allow Relay" flag is enough to handle this situation. If Allow Relay is true for the remote MTA, the second check is skipped. Please note the entire session takes less a minute (I should print the seconds to get actual rates). I don't see any flaw in this logic. Anyone care to comment? --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 5:30 AM Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > Yakov, > > I am seeing things or what? > > We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. > This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, > but practically 100%. > > Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which > basically says that the return path must be valid? I read the pros and > cons in the PDF you provided to me. It didn't make sense to me (the CONS). > As I noted to you via EMAIL, our system allows for programmable hooks at > each step of the protocol state machine: > > connect --> connect IP validate hook > HELO/EHLO ---> helo/ehlo validate hook > MAIL FROM: ---> mail from validate hook > RCPT TO: ---> recipient validation hook > DATA: ---> mail filter validation hook (3rd party software hooks) > > We offer internal support for RBL at the connect level, restrict conformity > to HELO/ECHO, local user validation at RCPT TO: and 3rd party hooks for the > DATA level. Now we added WCSAP (Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol) > to the MAIL FROM: state where the callerid verification takes place. > > I added additional logic to make it even stronger. > > If the CallerID verification process receives a 250 positive response in the > RCPT TO: return path validation, the logic then goes a step further to check > if the site is an open relay (see if will it accept any random address). > > For example, here is a snippet of a WCSAP callerid verification session for > an incoming return path. This was spawned by our SMTP server once MAIL > FROM: was issued by the remote MTA: > > 20031128 03:44 00006104 ------------------------------------- > 20031128 03:44 00006104 version: 1.34 / 1.3 (wcSAP) > 20031128 03:44 00006104 uid : 0 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 ip : 64.200.120.224 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 cdn : mx224.expts.biz > 20031128 03:44 00006104 hdn : > 20031128 03:44 00006104 from : > 20031128 03:44 00006104 trying mx: mail.expts.biz ip: 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 # connecting to 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 220 Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: HELO localhost > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Hello, pleased to meet you. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: MAIL FROM: <> > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Sender OK > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 matthewwalker@mx224.expts.biz... Recipient > OK. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: <123sxa23@alqwejad.com> > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 123sxa23@alqwejad.com... Recipient OK. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 * Open Relay site: 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: QUIT > 20031128 03:44 00006101 SMTP response code: 552 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 wcsap finish > 20031128 03:44 00006105 ------------------------------------- > > Notice how we get a positive on the return path and a positive on a random > address. This means this site is an open relay. Without it, the spammer > reaches the RCPT TO: state which in my opinion, is something you wish to > minimize allowing spammers to reach as it helps in thier learning logics. > > Also, I read little about JAMSPAM. > > You probably discussed it already, but the technical standards should > indicate and emphasis restrictions to the transports protocol is purely > technical. EMAIL SYSTEMS invalid handshaking is all the IETF should be > looking at to simplified this process. To go any further, simply will > complicate things and give JAMSPAM proponents a reason to exist. Their > layman argument is purely based on the legacy operations of the SMTP system. > Imposed stronger state point handshaking and these people have no basis for > argument other than "social." > > Unlike others I read in the group, this is a TECHNICAL problem. Not a social > issue. > > The idea of "filtering the data" once the transport system has done its job, > is purely a system level admistrative option and/or feature. This is akin > to the FTP protocol. In our system, we offer a "Scan File" option once a > file is uploaded, but this is an admin/customer issue. Has nothing to do > with the protocol itself. The technical process must adhere to standards > otherwise it (the session) is rejected. > > You want things to get moving, get the proposals that concentrate on the > technical aspects of SMTP who do not have any association whatsoever with > mail content or links to "databases" that could make for questionable > non-technical restrictions. That shouldn't be an SMTP issue. > > The bottom line is that once a strict SMTP protocol is put in place, the > SPAMMERS will have no choice but to comply because those are the secured > technical rules. In my view, this will clean up the spammer problem in > short order. They must comply from a technical standpoint. Period. It has > nothing to with SPAM, really. > > In any case, we are going to finally WCSAP CallerId Verification in our > Wildcat! mail system and go gamma with it next week to thousands of > customers. Ironically, I already even have received a concern from a 3rd > party Anti-Spam author saying "This is going to hurt our sales!" My > response was simple: "non-conforming anonymous systems into the mail > transport is now going to be a thing of the past. Mail from conforming > systems will be allowed to pass thru which is where your product comes into > play with its mail filtering techniques optionally offer to the system admin > and for users of the system." > > The thing is, unless I am seeing things, with WCSAP, we are blocking nearly > 100% of the darn spam! I have carefully looked at the looks for false > positives. None! > > I'm sure that spammers will eventually "conform" to technical standards. In > my view, from a SMTP standpoint, that is all the IETF and this working group > should care about. > > As a mail processor/gateway developer for several networks over the last 25 > years, I am firm believer in unaltered passthru of mail. In my view, it is > unethical to a) restrict mail reaching its destination and b) modify it in > any way. However, that has nothing to do with technical conformity. The > handshaking process should be an identified process on both ends. > > On a similar note, the RMX/DNS solutions, etc, are essentially the same > idea, but it requires DNS administration which in my view is going to be > problematic in all aspects, technically, politically, including > capitalistically (or communistically depending on your point of view). > Because of this, it will be slow to catch on. > > However, one way to help the process is to include as part of the SMTP > specification, a DNS registration process. This will force (encourage) > developers to include a "registration" process as part of their SMTP > software installation or setup process. This registration process can > include other attributes, besides RMX related, such as "type of system." Is > it open, closed (private) system? Does the system offer open spam, > restricted spam, or no spam? etc. > > Of course, this extended attribute concept be implemented using EHLO, > however, if we are going to require a modified MX DNS system, then we might > as well add other attributes to it as well. A conforming client can use > this information and help save at least 1/2 of the bandwidth. A client can > also instantly inform a user or sender that the communication with a target > system will be restricted in one form or another. > > Nonetheless, compared to a CallerID Verification concept, the extended DNS > based solutions is going to be a slow and costly endeavor. In my view, > Return Path callerid ID handshaking seems to be a very logical extension to > the SMTP client/server handshaking process. In the current form of SMTP, it > works fantastic. If we anticipate this is going to be a widely accepted > practice for all developers (big, including small, a major plus reason why > it will be accepted faster than a DNS based solution), then maybe we should > look at reducing handshaking requirements to accomplish a callerid > verification SMTP logic. > > Anyway, what at the flaws in a CallerId Verification that I am not seeing? > > Hector Santos, CTO > WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" > support: http://www.winserver.com > sales: http://www.santronics.com > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 06:58:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24650 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhGD-0002iS-3U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASBw9Sg010441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhGC-0002iK-UL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:08 -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 GAA24647 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhG8-0000nq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhG8-0000nn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhG4-0002dQ-TM; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhFF-0002d0-Dv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:09 -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 GAA24631 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhFB-0000mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:05 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhFA-0000mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:04 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:16 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2255101546; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:15 -0500 Message-ID: <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:57:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Incidentally, WCSAP is written using our wcBASIC ;anguage CLR system. Our Wildcat! SMTP server calls the WCSAP p-code image which is also accessible as a WEB service from our Wildcat! web server. I made it available for demonstation: http://www.winserver.com/public/code/html-wcsap?&xml=1&from=junkuser@solidmatrix.com Just make sure XML=1 is set to get XML/SOAP output. Other options: &debug=1 - text output (essentially the logger dupes the output to the virtual console) --- Hector Santos/CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 5:30 AM Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > Yakov, > > I am seeing things or what? > > We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. > This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, > but practically 100%. > > Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which > basically says that the return path must be valid? I read the pros and > cons in the PDF you provided to me. It didn't make sense to me (the CONS). > As I noted to you via EMAIL, our system allows for programmable hooks at > each step of the protocol state machine: > > connect --> connect IP validate hook > HELO/EHLO ---> helo/ehlo validate hook > MAIL FROM: ---> mail from validate hook > RCPT TO: ---> recipient validation hook > DATA: ---> mail filter validation hook (3rd party software hooks) > > We offer internal support for RBL at the connect level, restrict conformity > to HELO/ECHO, local user validation at RCPT TO: and 3rd party hooks for the > DATA level. Now we added WCSAP (Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol) > to the MAIL FROM: state where the callerid verification takes place. > > I added additional logic to make it even stronger. > > If the CallerID verification process receives a 250 positive response in the > RCPT TO: return path validation, the logic then goes a step further to check > if the site is an open relay (see if will it accept any random address). > > For example, here is a snippet of a WCSAP callerid verification session for > an incoming return path. This was spawned by our SMTP server once MAIL > FROM: was issued by the remote MTA: > > 20031128 03:44 00006104 ------------------------------------- > 20031128 03:44 00006104 version: 1.34 / 1.3 (wcSAP) > 20031128 03:44 00006104 uid : 0 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 ip : 64.200.120.224 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 cdn : mx224.expts.biz > 20031128 03:44 00006104 hdn : > 20031128 03:44 00006104 from : > 20031128 03:44 00006104 trying mx: mail.expts.biz ip: 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 # connecting to 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 220 Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: HELO localhost > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Hello, pleased to meet you. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: MAIL FROM: <> > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 Sender OK > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 matthewwalker@mx224.expts.biz... Recipient > OK. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: RCPT TO: <123sxa23@alqwejad.com> > 20031128 03:44 00006104 S: 250 123sxa23@alqwejad.com... Recipient OK. > 20031128 03:44 00006104 * Open Relay site: 64.119.222.7 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 C: QUIT > 20031128 03:44 00006101 SMTP response code: 552 > 20031128 03:44 00006104 wcsap finish > 20031128 03:44 00006105 ------------------------------------- > > Notice how we get a positive on the return path and a positive on a random > address. This means this site is an open relay. Without it, the spammer > reaches the RCPT TO: state which in my opinion, is something you wish to > minimize allowing spammers to reach as it helps in thier learning logics. > > Also, I read little about JAMSPAM. > > You probably discussed it already, but the technical standards should > indicate and emphasis restrictions to the transports protocol is purely > technical. EMAIL SYSTEMS invalid handshaking is all the IETF should be > looking at to simplified this process. To go any further, simply will > complicate things and give JAMSPAM proponents a reason to exist. Their > layman argument is purely based on the legacy operations of the SMTP system. > Imposed stronger state point handshaking and these people have no basis for > argument other than "social." > > Unlike others I read in the group, this is a TECHNICAL problem. Not a social > issue. > > The idea of "filtering the data" once the transport system has done its job, > is purely a system level admistrative option and/or feature. This is akin > to the FTP protocol. In our system, we offer a "Scan File" option once a > file is uploaded, but this is an admin/customer issue. Has nothing to do > with the protocol itself. The technical process must adhere to standards > otherwise it (the session) is rejected. > > You want things to get moving, get the proposals that concentrate on the > technical aspects of SMTP who do not have any association whatsoever with > mail content or links to "databases" that could make for questionable > non-technical restrictions. That shouldn't be an SMTP issue. > > The bottom line is that once a strict SMTP protocol is put in place, the > SPAMMERS will have no choice but to comply because those are the secured > technical rules. In my view, this will clean up the spammer problem in > short order. They must comply from a technical standpoint. Period. It has > nothing to with SPAM, really. > > In any case, we are going to finally WCSAP CallerId Verification in our > Wildcat! mail system and go gamma with it next week to thousands of > customers. Ironically, I already even have received a concern from a 3rd > party Anti-Spam author saying "This is going to hurt our sales!" My > response was simple: "non-conforming anonymous systems into the mail > transport is now going to be a thing of the past. Mail from conforming > systems will be allowed to pass thru which is where your product comes into > play with its mail filtering techniques optionally offer to the system admin > and for users of the system." > > The thing is, unless I am seeing things, with WCSAP, we are blocking nearly > 100% of the darn spam! I have carefully looked at the looks for false > positives. None! > > I'm sure that spammers will eventually "conform" to technical standards. In > my view, from a SMTP standpoint, that is all the IETF and this working group > should care about. > > As a mail processor/gateway developer for several networks over the last 25 > years, I am firm believer in unaltered passthru of mail. In my view, it is > unethical to a) restrict mail reaching its destination and b) modify it in > any way. However, that has nothing to do with technical conformity. The > handshaking process should be an identified process on both ends. > > On a similar note, the RMX/DNS solutions, etc, are essentially the same > idea, but it requires DNS administration which in my view is going to be > problematic in all aspects, technically, politically, including > capitalistically (or communistically depending on your point of view). > Because of this, it will be slow to catch on. > > However, one way to help the process is to include as part of the SMTP > specification, a DNS registration process. This will force (encourage) > developers to include a "registration" process as part of their SMTP > software installation or setup process. This registration process can > include other attributes, besides RMX related, such as "type of system." Is > it open, closed (private) system? Does the system offer open spam, > restricted spam, or no spam? etc. > > Of course, this extended attribute concept be implemented using EHLO, > however, if we are going to require a modified MX DNS system, then we might > as well add other attributes to it as well. A conforming client can use > this information and help save at least 1/2 of the bandwidth. A client can > also instantly inform a user or sender that the communication with a target > system will be restricted in one form or another. > > Nonetheless, compared to a CallerID Verification concept, the extended DNS > based solutions is going to be a slow and costly endeavor. In my view, > Return Path callerid ID handshaking seems to be a very logical extension to > the SMTP client/server handshaking process. In the current form of SMTP, it > works fantastic. If we anticipate this is going to be a widely accepted > practice for all developers (big, including small, a major plus reason why > it will be accepted faster than a DNS based solution), then maybe we should > look at reducing handshaking requirements to accomplish a callerid > verification SMTP logic. > > Anyway, what at the flaws in a CallerId Verification that I am not seeing? > > Hector Santos, CTO > WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" > support: http://www.winserver.com > sales: http://www.santronics.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 07:40:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25760 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhvE-0004Vs-Dw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASCeWix017342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhvE-0004Vd-7T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:32 -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 HAA25754 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhvD-0001S1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhvD-0001Ry-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhuk-0004Rj-Rd; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APhuJ-0004R6-RP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:39:36 -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 HAA25735 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhuJ-0001Re-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:39:35 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APhuH-0001Rb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:39:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 25074 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2003 12:39:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2003 12:39:25 -0000 Message-ID: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: Cc: "Jukka Inkeri" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C3B5BD.6E834950" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: [Asrg] Reverse MX [RMX] proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:39:30 +0200 Status: O This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C3B5BD.6E834950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Couple of comments after reading Reverse MX proposal, RMX records and = MTAMark draft. There are other proposals too, but they seem to do work mostly on domain specific configuration where as RMX and MTAMark concentrate on network specific configuration. MTAMark draft tells us the problem (from the spam point of view), and they have done great job, but I think it's a little too complicated to maintain. It may require configuration per domain if virtual domains have their own MX setup (this does not apply to all setups). Also, I don't like parsing TXT records (Parsing =3D=3D bugs =3D=3D = troubles). Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT records, too. Some Bind versions send extra character (space or ") (parser bug?) whereas Tinydns doesn't. Conclusion: I'm against TXT records.=20 RMX records (Do not confuse with Reverse MX records) is domain specific. = It's simply a list of IP addresses that can send email from some domain. In reality, some of the users may use just about any sending SMTP=20 server [depending on their ISP]. For example, I have a client that=20 operates in couple of countries, each using different ISP, yet the incoming MTA is always the same, outgoing MTA is never the same. They could be using SMTPAUTH, but instead they use email server of ISP to send out messages. Do you think I could do something about it? Should I administrate a list of outgoing mail servers for my=20 client in this case? No. It's not my job, so I'm against it and I = believe most of the administrators are against it. Also, RMX requires new=20 record type, that some bind versions refuse to send out. Reverse MX records tell one thing: List of SMTP server IP addresses that are trusted to communicate to outside networks. It's up to the receiving MTA to use that = information. Every administrator can choose whether they utilize that information or = not. Network owner does not block outgoing smtp connections. RMX is simple to administrate. It's just a list of IP addresses. It's simply a MX record in reverse zones. Example: Network administrator of 1.2.3.* network sets up a list of the=20 smtp servers [aka: trusted MTAs] that are supposed to talk=20 to outside networks. The list containst: 1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6 MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7 (mailslave.company.dom) -chooses- to add rmxsmtpd [imaginary software at this point] to his set up.=20 User at 1.2.3.10 sends out an email message. Message is first transmitted to 1.2.3.5 [users outgoing mail server] which=20 contacts 4.5.6.7 (MX for company.dom) MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records for the contacting IP address [3.2.1.in-addr.arpa] and finds a list that containst 1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6. The contacting IP address [1.2.3.5] is on the=20 list and message is accepted. [Other checks, like RBL may=20 ofcourse block the service after that, too] Scenario 2:=20 A virus infected users machine [1.2.3.10] and tries to send email=20 using its own smtp server (tries to send email to everybody on the=20 users contact list).=20 MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records, finds a list and determines that this ip is not trusted. Message is not accepted for delivery. Scenario 3: User at 1.2.3.10 chooses to spam 10 million users (to get sales leads!) and uses special purpose smtp server on his machine to do the job. MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records, finds a list and determines that this ip is not trusted. Message is not accepted for delivery. Scenario 4: MTA Administrator at 6.7.8.9 has not (yet) set up the smtp server to check for Reverse MX. Messages will be accepted (other passes, like RBL, may deny the access). Scenario 5: MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7 sets up the reverse mx check, but network administrator for 1.2.3.* has not yet set up a list of trusted smtp servers in his network. User at 1.2.3.10 sends out a message using 1.2.3.5 (his=20 outgoing MTA).=20 MTA at 4.5.6.7 tries to check for reverse mx but doesn't find anything. Currently, I think MTA should accept the delivery, but after 1st of June 2004 (reasonable time to set up the list) the MTA utilizing reverse mx check may not accept the delivery. MTA should respond; "Your IP [1.2.3.5] is not listed in Reverse MX!=20 Contact your mail or your network administrator. See = http://www.reversemx.org/". Implementing (technology): Users of qmail can utilize RBLSMTPD to block out open relays etc,=20 and after a quick look to the code I think it should be reasonably=20 easy to modify code for this purpose (RMXSMTPD) Implementing (the people): I think this reverse mx must be made mandatory for all networks. However, I believe people will be educated by their users better -=20 in other words, when the policy change comes (1st of June 2003)=20 administrators will get a hell of a lot calls from their users and=20 will be forced to set up a list.=20 Blocking out evil people (spammers with own network): It's easy enough to block them out using RBL. References: Reverse MX = http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/textdb/browser/showfile?cust=3Dawkoulutus&subd= ir=3Ddns&doc=3Dreverse_mx MTAMark http://www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt RMX Records http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ -- Tomi Panula-Ontto, Koodia Ltd. E-mail: tomi AT panula-ont DOT to ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C3B5BD.6E834950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Couple of comments after reading = Reverse MX=20 proposal, RMX records and MTAMark draft.
 
There are other proposals too, but they = seem to do=20 work
mostly on domain specific configuration = where as=20 RMX and
MTAMark concentrate on network specific = configuration.
 
MTAMark draft tells us the problem = (from the spam=20 point of view),
and they have done great job, but I = think it's a=20 little too complicated
to maintain. It may require = configuration per=20 domain if virtual
domains have their own MX setup (this = does not=20 apply to all setups).
Also, I don't like parsing TXT records = (Parsing =3D=3D=20 bugs =3D=3D troubles).
Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT = records,=20 too. Some Bind versions
send extra=20 character (space or ") (parser bug?) = whereas=20 Tinydns doesn't.
Conclusion: I'm against TXT records. =
 
RMX records (Do not confuse with = Reverse MX=20 records) is domain specific.
It's simply a list of IP addresses that = can send=20 email from some domain.
In reality, some of the users may use = just=20 about any sending SMTP
server [depending on their ISP]. For = example, =20 I have a client that
operates in couple of countries, each = using=20 different ISP, yet the
incoming MTA is always the same, = outgoing MTA=20 is never the same.
They could be using SMTPAUTH, but = instead they use=20 email server
of ISP to send out messages. Do you = think I could=20 do something
about it? Should I administrate a list = of outgoing=20 mail servers for my
client in this case? No. It's not my = job, so I'm=20 against it and I believe
most of the administrators are against = it.=20 Also, RMX requires=20 new
record type, that=20 some bind versions refuse to = send=20 out.
 
Reverse MX records tell one = thing:
List of SMTP server IP addresses that = are trusted=20 to communicate
to outside networks. It's up to the = receiving MTA=20 to use that information.
Every administrator can choose whether = they utilize=20 that information or not.
Network owner does not block outgoing = smtp=20 connections.
RMX is simple to administrate. It's = just a list of=20 IP addresses.
It's simply a MX record in reverse=20 zones.
 
Example:
Network administrator of 1.2.3.* = network sets=20 up a list of the
smtp servers [aka: trusted MTAs] = that are = supposed to talk=20
to outside networks. The list = containst: 1.2.3.5=20 and 1.2.3.6
 
MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7=20 (mailslave.company.dom) -chooses- to add
rmxsmtpd [imaginary software at this = point] to his=20 set up.
 
User at 1.2.3.10 sends out an email = message.=20 Message is first
transmitted to 1.2.3.5 [users outgoing = mail server]=20 which
contacts 4.5.6.7 (MX for = company.dom)
 
MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX = records for=20 the contacting
IP address [3.2.1.in-addr.arpa] and = finds a list=20 that containst
1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6. The contacting IP = address=20 [1.2.3.5] is on the
list and message is=20 accepted. [Other checks, like RBL may
ofcourse block the service after that,=20 too]
 
Scenario 2:
A virus infected users machine = [1.2.3.10] and tries=20 to send email
using its own smtp=20 server (tries to send email to everybody on the
users contact list).
 
MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX = records, finds=20 a list
and determines that this ip is not = trusted. Message=20 is not accepted
for delivery.
 
Scenario 3:
User at 1.2.3.10 chooses to = spam 10 million=20 users (to get sales leads!)
and uses special purpose smtp = server on his=20 machine to do the job.
 
MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX = records, finds=20 a list
and determines that this ip is not = trusted. Message=20 is not accepted
for delivery.
 
Scenario 4:
MTA Administrator at 6.7.8.9 has not = (yet) set up=20 the smtp server
to check for Reverse MX.
 
Messages will be accepted (other = passes, like RBL,=20 may deny
the access).
 
Scenario 5:
MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7 sets up = the reverse mx=20 check,
but network administrator for 1.2.3.* = has not yet=20 set up a list
of trusted smtp servers in his=20 network.
 
User at 1.2.3.10 sends out a message = using 1.2.3.5=20 (his
outgoing MTA).
 
MTA at 4.5.6.7 tries to check for = reverse mx but=20 doesn't find
anything. Currently, I think MTA should = accept the=20 delivery,
but after 1st of June 2004 = (reasonable time to=20 set up the list)
the MTA utilizing reverse mx check may = not accept=20 the delivery.
MTA should respond; "Your IP [1.2.3.5] is not listed in Reverse MX!
Contact your mail or your network = administrator.=20 See http://www.reversemx.org/".=
 
Implementing (technology):
Users of qmail can utilize RBLSMTPD to = block out=20 open relays etc,
and after a quick look to the code I = think it=20 should be reasonably
easy to modify code for this purpose=20 (RMXSMTPD)
 
Implementing (the people):
I think this reverse mx must = be made=20 mandatory for all networks.
However, I believe people will be = educated by their=20 users better -
in other words, when the policy change = comes (1st=20 of June 2003)
administrators will get a hell of = a lot calls=20 from their users and
will be forced to set up a list. =
 
Blocking out evil people (spammers with = own=20 network):
It's easy enough to block them out = using=20 RBL.
 
 
References:
 
Reverse MX http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/tex= tdb/browser/showfile?cust=3Dawkoulutus&subdir=3Ddns&doc=3Dreverse= _mx
MTAMark http:/= /www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt
RMX Records http://www.miker= ubel.org/computers/rmx_records/
 
 
--
Tomi Panula-Ontto, Koodia = Ltd.
E-mail:=20 tomi AT panula-ont DOT to
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C3B5BD.6E834950-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 09:48:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29558 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APjun-0000y4-5N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASEmDWN003714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APjum-0000xn-UV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 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 JAA29552 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APjuk-0003Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APjuk-0003LY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APjua-0000t5-R4; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APjuP-0000sf-Hm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:47:49 -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 JAA29539 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APjuN-0003Kw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:47:47 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APjuM-0003Kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:47:46 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1APjtm-0003Iy-Fd; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification To: "Hector Santos" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:10 +0000 Status: O > Incidentally, WCSAP is written using our wcBASIC ;anguage CLR system. Our > Wildcat! SMTP server calls the WCSAP p-code image which is also > accessible > as a WEB service from our Wildcat! web server. > > > I made it available for demonstation: > > http://www.winserver.com/public/code/html-wcsap?&xml=1&from= > Yow - that's your box blacked by AOL, when someone hits it a zillion times as a joke. I hope it doesn't need to send any real mail. Incidentally, this is often called "Sender Callback Verification" and is quite widely used - it's built into many MTAs (such as exim). Or am I missing something? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 09:54:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29658 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APk0k-0001D6-5T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASEsMUU004646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APk0k-0001Cr-1d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:22 -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 JAA29650 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APk0i-0003Nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APk0h-0003NY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APk0P-00019D-NX; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APk0J-000192-6d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:55 -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 JAA29645 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APk0H-0003NU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:53 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APk0G-0003NR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:52 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE06EAFD51 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS 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, 28 Nov 2003 09:53:49 -0500 Status: O At 10:15 AM +1030 11/27/03, Chris imposed structure on a stream of electrons, yielding: >> >> Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass >> mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from >> under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing >> will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore >> thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal >> usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. >> >> -- > > >This sounds strikingly similar to the http push er push of a few years ago. > >remember everyone would have an "active desktop" and news and stories of >interest would be pushed to the user. > >Does any one remember how successful that was? > >the "http push" was in fact a pull system, the user would pull on to his >desktop feeds (RSS) from their favourite sources > >if it failed then, what's changed ? If you are talking about PointCast and their fellow-travelers, you are not talking about RSS, or at least not modern RSS which didn't exist until 1999, but about proprietary technology and massively foolish business plans reliant on people being eager to get ads that they did not really choose to get. So what has changed is: 1. It's not a reality-free business plan designed to sucker some dumb VC's and IPO buyers out of their investment capital to line the pockets of a bunch of hucksters. It's not a business plan at all. No one is trying to get rich by owning the idea or the tools, so no one has to be a revenue source for those non-existent owners to concentrate. 2. RSS is an existing open standard that people are already using and migrating to now on their own, without anything like an RFC recommending it or any huckster (unless you count Dave Winer) selling it. It is already showing signs of being the future preferred broadcast medium for marketers and others who want to minimize their chance of ever being called spammers or being seen as intrusive. 3. The circa-1998 push systems were all essentially based on hacks of HTML and HTTP, which were ill-suited to the task. RSS is a purpose-built XML dialect, so there is greater fitness to the task. 4. RSS does not have anyone trying to make it a 'push' system. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 10:59:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02252 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1A-00039t-TQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASFwqMh012135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1A-00039e-Mz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:52 -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 KAA02237 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APl18-000444-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APl17-000440-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl0L-00034R-Ew; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl01-00034F-87 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:57:45 -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 KAA02220 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APkzw-00043D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:57:36 -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 1APkzq-000430-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:57:31 -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 1APl5M-00049E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:03:12 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:30:34 EST." <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> 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, 28 Nov 2003 11:03:11 -0500 Status: O "Hector Santos" wrote: > We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. > This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, > but practically 100%. > > Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which > basically says that the return path must be valid? As noted in another message, a number of people *are* using this method. The problem with it is that it's a band-aid. The purpose of ASRG is to see if there are other methods which will reduce the spam problem. e.g. Reducing the amount of spam sent, which is very different than reducing the amount of spam received. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 10:59:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02270 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1Q-0003EL-7P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASFx8fx012411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1Q-0003E6-2H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:08 -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 KAA02244 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APl1I-00044G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APl1I-00044D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1J-0003AI-Sb; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APl1G-00039w-Tb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:58 -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 KAA02241 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APl1E-00044A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:56 -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 1APl18-00043z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:51 -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 1APl6h-00049S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:04:35 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:42:23 EST." <005201c3b5a4$b1ee8a10$60c6d344@FAMILY> 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, 28 Nov 2003 11:04:34 -0500 Status: O "Hector Santos" wrote: > Please note the entire session takes less a minute (I should print the > seconds to get actual rates). > > I don't see any flaw in this logic. Anyone care to comment? Try it with AOL's mail system. They're getting a billion spam messages a day. Band-aids don't work if the patient is bleeding from every square inch of their skin. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 13:02:04 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05425 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APmw7-0007b8-0g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASI1k6O029206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APmw6-0007az-Sw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:46 -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 NAA05394 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APmw5-0006AQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APmw4-0006AN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APmvO-0007X4-Q3; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APmvG-0007Wa-EU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:00:54 -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 NAA05375 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APmvD-0006AC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:00:51 -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 1APmvD-00069i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:00:51 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-362-071.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.128.216]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP200ISQPZBST@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:59:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:59:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > Yakov, > > I am seeing things or what? > > We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. > This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, > but practically 100%. > The method you are refering is similar to what is more commonly known as "Challenge/Response" (C/R). Majority of C/R implementation actually send a message back to the sender asking him/her to click on a link to reply to the message in order to verify that the sender exists. Some go further and use reverse-Turing tests with images that supposedly only humans and not machines can read. Your particular method does not actually send the email to the sender, but stops as soon as the RCPT TO: path has been found to be valid which varies from the C/R systems. > Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which > basically says that the return path must be valid? I read the pros and > cons in the PDF you provided to me. It didn't make sense to me (the CONS). The simple reason why C/R works is because spammers don't care. At this point a very small minority of email systems in the world use any kind of C/R, and therefore spammers do not bother spending the time to fight them. Some C/R companies such as MailBlocks, etc. report virtually 99% success rate. However, if C/R usage spreads, then spammers will have an incentive to attack them, and they will. Also, spammers tend to share their results much easier then some of the anti-spam people. There are problems with the the regular C/R approaches that apply here as well: 1. Nothing stops a spammer from using someone else's email address with that domain answering yes (unless you start matching the his email address with his IP which is what the LMAP proposals do). Especially this would be true if he uses YOUR domain. Also, as per RFC 2822 you must support MAIL FROM: <> which basically allows spammers to bypass everything at this step. 2. Even checking MAIL FROM does not prevent spammers from forging the "From" header inside the actual email message. While there are numerous problems with regular C/R, your particular approach has some issues as well: 1. Nothing stops a spammer from using his own domain which answers "yes" to all RCPT TOs to that domain (BUT not an open relay). 2. ISPs tend to play around with RCPT TO: handling such as answering "yes" to all requests, or delaying responses in order to make sure spammers do not use RCPT TO: for harvesting email addresses. 3. Since your proposal operates at the MAIL FROM step, if the sender's receiving MTA is off-line this process will fail. This will also be a problem if the sender is using GreyListing (http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/). According to RFC 2821, section 4.5.4.1., the originator must be able to resend email several times when temporary failure occurs, which in practice happens sometimes. > As I noted to you via EMAIL, our system allows for programmable hooks at > each step of the protocol state machine: > > connect --> connect IP validate hook Would this be an rDNS / RBL hook? > HELO/EHLO ---> helo/ehlo validate hook What kind of hook are you using here? If a spammer uses a valid domain here, nothing stops him. Only something like LMAP/DRIP that ties IP addresses with domain names for SMTP can help against that. > MAIL FROM: ---> mail from validate hook What kind of hook aside from this proposal are you using here? > RCPT TO: ---> recipient validation hook > DATA: ---> mail filter validation hook (3rd party software hooks) > > We offer internal support for RBL at the connect level, restrict conformity > to HELO/ECHO, local user validation at RCPT TO: and 3rd party hooks for the > DATA level. Now we added WCSAP (Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol) > to the MAIL FROM: state where the callerid verification takes place. > > I added additional logic to make it even stronger. > > If the CallerID verification process receives a 250 positive response in the > RCPT TO: return path validation, the logic then goes a step further to check > if the site is an open relay (see if will it accept any random address). > What happens with 4xx codes? or if the MTA is off-line? In regular C/R, the challenge message will be resent multiple times as per RFC 2821, section 4.5.4.1 an that avoids the problems mentioned above. [...] > > Also, I read little about JAMSPAM. > JamSpam seems to be currently dead. The folks involved could not agree on anything so it fell apart. > You probably discussed it already, but the technical standards should > indicate and emphasis restrictions to the transports protocol is purely > technical. EMAIL SYSTEMS invalid handshaking is all the IETF should be > looking at to simplified this process. To go any further, simply will > complicate things and give JAMSPAM proponents a reason to exist. Their > layman argument is purely based on the legacy operations of the SMTP system. > Imposed stronger state point handshaking and these people have no basis for > argument other than "social." > What kind of controls are we talking about? Something like LMAP? > Unlike others I read in the group, this is a TECHNICAL problem. Not a social > issue. > > The idea of "filtering the data" once the transport system has done its job, > is purely a system level admistrative option and/or feature. This is akin > to the FTP protocol. In our system, we offer a "Scan File" option once a > file is uploaded, but this is an admin/customer issue. Has nothing to do > with the protocol itself. The technical process must adhere to standards > otherwise it (the session) is rejected. > RFC 2821 states (sections 3.3, 4.1.1.4 and 6.1) that the SMTP server has two options: accept or reject the message, and has two options to send back OK or Failure (5xx). HOWEVER, once the message has been accepted as per this section (6.1): " When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility seriously. It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage. If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a notification. Obviously, nothing in this section can or should prohibit local decisions (i.e., as part of the same system environment as the receiver-SMTP) to log or otherwise transmit information about null address events locally if that is desired. If the address is an explicit source route, it MUST be stripped down to its final hop. " Therefore, the RFC does dictate what should been done with the message once it has been filtered. Even though many anti-spam systems honor this "in breach", this is another illustration of how protocols affect other things, even filtering. > You want things to get moving, get the proposals that concentrate on the > technical aspects of SMTP who do not have any association whatsoever with > mail content or links to "databases" that could make for questionable > non-technical restrictions. That shouldn't be an SMTP issue. > > The bottom line is that once a strict SMTP protocol is put in place, the > SPAMMERS will have no choice but to comply because those are the secured > technical rules. In my view, this will clean up the spammer problem in > short order. They must comply from a technical standpoint. Period. It has > nothing to with SPAM, really. > It will only work if most of the mail systems on the Internet comply with it. The IETF cannot force compliance with its standards. Therefore, partly what we are seeking is an incremental solution as stated in the technical considerations document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt): " 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. " We are open to hearing how the existing SMTP protocol may be tightened but its must be proven that this will solve the problem. > In any case, we are going to finally WCSAP CallerId Verification in our > Wildcat! mail system and go gamma with it next week to thousands of > customers. Ironically, I already even have received a concern from a 3rd > party Anti-Spam author saying "This is going to hurt our sales!" My > response was simple: "non-conforming anonymous systems into the mail > transport is now going to be a thing of the past. Mail from conforming > systems will be allowed to pass thru which is where your product comes into > play with its mail filtering techniques optionally offer to the system admin > and for users of the system." > I am sure that you will allow for more than "4-5 days of testing" before deploying this. > The thing is, unless I am seeing things, with WCSAP, we are blocking nearly > 100% of the darn spam! I have carefully looked at the looks for false > positives. None! > IF you are rejecting email at the MAIL FROM stage, there is now way to check for false positives since you do not have the actual email message. Additionally, your specific test installation might not be large enough to extrapolate to the entire Internet. If you can provide additional statistical information, that would be useful. > I'm sure that spammers will eventually "conform" to technical standards. In > my view, from a SMTP standpoint, that is all the IETF and this working group > should care about. > Spammers do not care - they will only conform to standards if they are forced to do so in order to deliver their garbage. Therefore, in order for any standard to work, existing email systems on the Internet must be willing to adapt them. > As a mail processor/gateway developer for several networks over the last 25 > years, I am firm believer in unaltered passthru of mail. In my view, it is > unethical to a) restrict mail reaching its destination and b) modify it in > any way. However, that has nothing to do with technical conformity. The > handshaking process should be an identified process on both ends. > > On a similar note, the RMX/DNS solutions, etc, are essentially the same > idea, but it requires DNS administration which in my view is going to be > problematic in all aspects, technically, politically, including > capitalistically (or communistically depending on your point of view). > Because of this, it will be slow to catch on. > Nevertheless, any existing methods do not provide a way during handshaking to tie in IP addresses to domain names for SMTP. This is something that must be introduced in order to verify senders, or some other method. > However, one way to help the process is to include as part of the SMTP > specification, a DNS registration process. This will force (encourage) > developers to include a "registration" process as part of their SMTP > software installation or setup process. This registration process can > include other attributes, besides RMX related, such as "type of system." Is > it open, closed (private) system? Does the system offer open spam, > restricted spam, or no spam? etc. > > Of course, this extended attribute concept be implemented using EHLO, > however, if we are going to require a modified MX DNS system, then we might > as well add other attributes to it as well. A conforming client can use > this information and help save at least 1/2 of the bandwidth. A client can > also instantly inform a user or sender that the communication with a target > system will be restricted in one form or another. > > Nonetheless, compared to a CallerID Verification concept, the extended DNS > based solutions is going to be a slow and costly endeavor. In my view, > Return Path callerid ID handshaking seems to be a very logical extension to > the SMTP client/server handshaking process. In the current form of SMTP, it > works fantastic. If we anticipate this is going to be a widely accepted > practice for all developers (big, including small, a major plus reason why > it will be accepted faster than a DNS based solution), then maybe we should > look at reducing handshaking requirements to accomplish a callerid > verification SMTP logic. > The following sections from the technical considerations document are relevant: " 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. " This statement would apply to CHANGING the SMTP protocol as well. Any major changes would have the same deployment issues. See also the following: "4.1. Adoption A critical barrier to the success of a new mechanism is the effort it takes to begin using it. It is essential to look carefully at the adoption process. 1) Adoption What is the effort for a new Effort participant to start using the proposed mechanism? This includes installation, learning to use it and performing initial operations. This is also called the "barrier to entry". 2) Threshold What is required before users get to benefit some benefit from the mechanism? Primarily, this looks for the number of users who must adopt the mechanism before the adopters gain utility from it. 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. 3) Impact on What is the impact on the senders Participants and receivers who adopt the proposal? Senders and receivers currently have certain styles of operation. How are those styles changed? 4) Impact on What is the impact on the senders Others and receivers who do *not* adopt the proposal? What effect does it have on legitimate users of email? What effect does it have on spammers? Is the nature of Internet mail changed for everyone, including non- adopters? For example, a challenge-response system is irritating for the person being challenged, and it imposes extra delay on the desired communication. If the originator and the recipient both access the Internet only occasionally (such as through dial-up when mobile) a challenge-response model can impose days of delay. For some communications, this can be disastrous. " ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 13:12:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05731 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn6A-00088P-8H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASICAAE031263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn6A-00088A-2b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:10 -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 NAA05683 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn67-0006NX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn67-0006NS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn60-00084U-Iy; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APm4m-0005x4-VX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:06:42 -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 MAA03901 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APm4l-0005IU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:06:39 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APm4k-0005IQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:06:38 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: jblwrqDHaPYpcP7fAV9Y7A 1070039195 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2C044DDFA; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:06:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: security1@awot.fi References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> In-Reply-To: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:06:33 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Any news on further work from the LMAP group - a revised LMAP Discussion and Applicability Statement? An LMAP design document? Another suggestion for the Statement: it should go over WHY it does not examine or verify the body From: field - which, IIRC, a post to this list went over - there's a case or two where it's legitimate for it not to match, yes? -e.g. legitimate relaying and forwarding? The recently re-proposed "rMX and rDNS co-operate" concept is an interesting idea, but it fails in several respects where LMAP doesn't, beyond those already mentioned. Verisign patent promoter (P H-B) wrote: > The other practical problem is that there are machines with several > hundred > thousand email domains parked on one machine. It's indeed a problem because of who it puts in charge of maintaining the authorized sender info, as I'll get into below. On 11/28/2003 4:39 AM, Tomi Panula-Ontto sent forth electrons to convey: >Couple of comments after reading Reverse MX proposal, RMX records and MTAMark draft. > >There are other proposals too, but they seem to do work >mostly on domain specific configuration where as RMX and >MTAMark concentrate on network specific configuration. > >MTAMark draft tells us the problem (from the spam point of view), >and they have done great job, but I think it's a little too complicated >to maintain. It may require configuration per domain if virtual >domains have their own MX setup (this does not apply to all setups). >Also, I don't like parsing TXT records (Parsing == bugs == troubles). >Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT records, too. Some Bind versions >send extra character (space or ") (parser bug?) whereas Tinydns doesn't. >Conclusion: I'm against TXT records. > > A bug in the TXT part of software that has known security holes and MUST be replaced anyway isn't a deal breaker, IMO; I'm assuming these bugs are only in old versions. >RMX records (Do not confuse with Reverse MX records) is domain specific. >It's simply a list of IP addresses that can send email from some domain. >In reality, some of the users may use just about any sending SMTP >server [depending on their ISP]. For example, I have a client that >operates in couple of countries, each using different ISP, yet the >incoming MTA is always the same, outgoing MTA is never the same. >They could be using SMTPAUTH, but instead they use email server >of ISP to send out messages. Do you think I could do something >about it? Should I administrate a list of outgoing mail servers for my >client in this case? No. It's not my job, so I'm against it and I believe >most of the administrators are against it. Also, RMX requires new >record type, that some bind versions refuse to send out. > > Argument built on a false foundation. Your client isn't using "just about any sending SMTP server". A short list of the IPs of the SMTP servers of the two (or 20) ISPs your client uses is 0.0% of the SMTP servers on the 'net. Expanding on Yakov's and PHB's comments: LMAP's being domain specific instead of network specific is a strength not a weakness, because of who it puts in charge of creating/maintaining the authorized sender info. It puts someone with a vested interest in having that info be accurate in charge: the domain owner, who under LMTP is going to tell you that it now is your job to administrate a list of outgoing mail servers. This is way better than putting perhaps a large, spammer-friendly ISP, e.g. most of the 'Tier 1s' in the US in charge, or the admin of a machine hosting thousands of domains, both of whom, assuming they take the unlikely step to set up the records at all, will likely do a poor job maintaining them, because it's what their spamming customers will want. If one of their customers is spamming, you expect them to change the record to remove authorization for the spamming IP, but that's roughly equivalent to terminating that customer, and we all (should) know, they're often not doing that today, so there's no reason to expect they'll do it tomorrow. Network specific authorization (the "rMX and rDNS co-operate" scheme) doesn't prevent domain forgery. With LMTP, bad lists only hurt the domains they are lists for; with network specific authorization, an authorized IP can hurt (forge) all domains. >Reverse MX records tell one thing: >List of SMTP server IP addresses that are trusted to communicate >to outside networks. > > Under the "rMX and rDNS co-operate" scheme, this list is of IPs trusted (i.e. listed) by people who have often proven untrustworthy. >Reverse MX >MTAMark http://www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt >RMX Records http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ > > LMAP: _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 13:15:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05811 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn91-0008Rf-AQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASIF7j9032457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn91-0008RI-58 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:07 -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 NAA05795 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8z-0006Rt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8y-0006Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn8y-0008GC-Lv; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn8i-0008Eh-I1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:48 -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 NAA05780 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8g-0006RE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:46 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8f-0006R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:46 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCD5AFF6A for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: From: asrg@billmail.scconsult.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX 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, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:41 -0500 Status: O At 10:36 AM -0800 11/27/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>Many people prefer the LMAP proposals that deal with regular "forward" >>DNS than the MTA mark proposal that uses reverse DNS, because a usual >>domain owner has control over regular DNS and does not have control over >>reverse DNS. > >Absolutely, reverse DNS has not been generally considered a critical >infrastructure, nobody uses it today except for debugging. That is not true. RoadRunner has been using it to decide whether a connecting machine on port 25 is worthy of sending them mail, based (apparently) on whether the name resolved to matches .*(dsl|dial|dyn).* >The zones are prefectly stable, the problem is that the information in those >zones is not maintained by the IP block holders to a sufficiently high >quality. > >The other practical problem is that there are machines with several hundred >thousand email domains parked on one machine. That's why DNS resolvers should always fall back to TCP when they get a truncated response. Using rDNS for anything significant without being prepared for a very large response is careless and stupid, but it is dominant practice and people ARE using rDNS in serious ways now without thinking about what they are doing with any sort of technical depth. Beyond that, there is a very poor coherency to how IP space holders view the 'correct' population of in-addr.arpa zones. Many treat rDNS as being essentially for their own administrative use, and put in names relating to the way an address it routed or connected, and do not even offer their customers who use the IP addresses any obvious way to have the rDNS changed to match the functional identities of addresses. There is honest disagreement over whether and how forward and reverse DNS should always be made 'consistent' and that disagreement is only made worse by the fact that the RFC's which touch on the issue can best be described as quaint historical documents. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 13:15:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05826 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn91-0008RQ-6q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASIF7QF032441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn90-0008RA-Uc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:07 -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 NAA05792 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8y-0006Rp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8y-0006Rm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn8x-0008FP-58; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APn8X-0008Eb-6W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:37 -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 NAA05776 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APn8V-0006R0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:35 -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 1APn8U-0006Qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:14:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-362-071.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.128.216]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP2007O2QNAWD@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - LMAP / Reverse MX (was Re: [Asrg] Reverse MX [RMX] proposal) In-reply-to: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Jukka Inkeri Message-id: <3FC79067.1020107@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:13:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Please take a look also at the LMAP discussion draft: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: > > Couple of comments after reading Reverse MX proposal, RMX records and > MTAMark draft. > > There are other proposals too, but they seem to do work > mostly on domain specific configuration where as RMX and > MTAMark concentrate on network specific configuration. > > MTAMark draft tells us the problem (from the spam point of view), > and they have done great job, but I think it's a little too complicated > to maintain. It may require configuration per domain if virtual > domains have their own MX setup (this does not apply to all setups). > Also, I don't like parsing TXT records (Parsing == bugs == troubles). > Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT records, too. Some Bind versions > send extra character (space or ") (parser bug?) whereas Tinydns doesn't. > Conclusion: I'm against TXT records. > > RMX records (Do not confuse with Reverse MX records) is domain specific. > It's simply a list of IP addresses that can send email from some domain. > In reality, some of the users may use just about any sending SMTP > server [depending on their ISP]. For example, I have a client that > operates in couple of countries, each using different ISP, yet the > incoming MTA is always the same, outgoing MTA is never the same. > They could be using SMTPAUTH, but instead they use email server > of ISP to send out messages. Do you think I could do something > about it? Should I administrate a list of outgoing mail servers for my > client in this case? No. It's not my job, so I'm against it and I believe > most of the administrators are against it. Also, RMX requires new > record type, that some bind versions refuse to send out. > > Reverse MX records tell one thing: > List of SMTP server IP addresses that are trusted to communicate > to outside networks. It's up to the receiving MTA to use that information. > Every administrator can choose whether they utilize that information or > not. > Network owner does not block outgoing smtp connections. > RMX is simple to administrate. It's just a list of IP addresses. > It's simply a MX record in reverse zones. > > Example: > Network administrator of 1.2.3.* network sets up a list of the > smtp servers [aka: trusted MTAs] that are supposed to talk > to outside networks. The list containst: 1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6 > > MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7 (mailslave.company.dom) -chooses- to add > rmxsmtpd [imaginary software at this point] to his set up. > > User at 1.2.3.10 sends out an email message. Message is first > transmitted to 1.2.3.5 [users outgoing mail server] which > contacts 4.5.6.7 (MX for company.dom) > > MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records for the contacting > IP address [3.2.1.in-addr.arpa] and finds a list that containst > 1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6. The contacting IP address [1.2.3.5] is on the > list and message is accepted. [Other checks, like RBL may > ofcourse block the service after that, too] > > Scenario 2: > A virus infected users machine [1.2.3.10] and tries to send email > using its own smtp server (tries to send email to everybody on the > users contact list). > > MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records, finds a list > and determines that this ip is not trusted. Message is not accepted > for delivery. > > Scenario 3: > User at 1.2.3.10 chooses to spam 10 million users (to get sales leads!) > and uses special purpose smtp server on his machine to do the job. > > MTA at 4.5.6.7 checks for Reverse MX records, finds a list > and determines that this ip is not trusted. Message is not accepted > for delivery. > > Scenario 4: > MTA Administrator at 6.7.8.9 has not (yet) set up the smtp server > to check for Reverse MX. > > Messages will be accepted (other passes, like RBL, may deny > the access). > > Scenario 5: > MTA Administrator at 4.5.6.7 sets up the reverse mx check, > but network administrator for 1.2.3.* has not yet set up a list > of trusted smtp servers in his network. > > User at 1.2.3.10 sends out a message using 1.2.3.5 (his > outgoing MTA). > > MTA at 4.5.6.7 tries to check for reverse mx but doesn't find > anything. Currently, I think MTA should accept the delivery, > but after 1st of June 2004 (reasonable time to set up the list) > the MTA utilizing reverse mx check may not accept the delivery. > MTA should respond; "Your IP [1.2.3.5] is not listed in Reverse MX! > Contact your mail or your network administrator. See > http://www.reversemx.org/". > > Implementing (technology): > Users of qmail can utilize RBLSMTPD to block out open relays etc, > and after a quick look to the code I think it should be reasonably > easy to modify code for this purpose (RMXSMTPD) > > Implementing (the people): > I think this reverse mx must be made mandatory for all networks. > However, I believe people will be educated by their users better - > in other words, when the policy change comes (1st of June 2003) > administrators will get a hell of a lot calls from their users and > will be forced to set up a list. > > Blocking out evil people (spammers with own network): > It's easy enough to block them out using RBL. > > > References: > > Reverse MX > http://www.awot.fi/cgi-bin/textdb/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx > > > MTAMark http://www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt > RMX Records http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ > > > -- > Tomi Panula-Ontto, Koodia Ltd. > E-mail: tomi AT panula-ont DOT to > > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 13:37:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06186 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APnUV-0000ay-7y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASIbHTQ002162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APnUT-0000Yn-0W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:17 -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 NAA06164 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APnUQ-0006s6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APnUQ-0006s2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APnUC-0000U9-Nd; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APnTO-0000TN-2o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:36:17 -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 NAA06117 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APnTL-0006pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:36:07 -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 1APnTG-0006pi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:36:02 -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 1APnYp-0004Er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:41:47 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:06:33 PST." <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.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, 28 Nov 2003 13:41:47 -0500 Status: O Matthew Elvey wrote: > Any news on further work from the LMAP group - a revised LMAP Discussion > and Applicability Statement? An LMAP design document? I'm currently working on updating the discussion paper. There isn't a design document. Instead, I'm working in another document which compares the technical details of the various proposals. > Another suggestion for the Statement: it should go over WHY it does not > examine or verify the body From: field - which, IIRC, a post to this > list went over - there's a case or two where it's legitimate for it not > to match, yes? -e.g. legitimate relaying and forwarding? Yes. The document discusses forwarding. It doesn't discuss legitimate relaying. I find it interesting that in all of the discussions surrounding RMX-style solutions, I don't recall anyone mentioning off-site MX secondaries. So far as the primary MX is concerned, they're authorized relays. But the secondary SHOULD also apply as much as possible the same filtering schemes to the messages, otherwise spammers can use it as an "open relay" to the primary. > Expanding on Yakov's and PHB's comments: LMAP's being domain specific > instead of network specific is a strength not a weakness, because of who > it puts in charge of creating/maintaining the authorized sender info. Exactly. In addition, while spammers can currently use any IP to send spam, LMAP gives the recipient something *other* than a random IP to blame: the domain. So spammers have to do more work to find domains with permissive LMAP information, and the recipient has one more piece of information to use in applying content filters. It's not about LMAP solving the worlds problems. It's about a system of layered defences against spam. LMAP is just one piece of the puzzle. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 15:06:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08904 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APosR-00036k-EW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASK67gG011940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APosR-00036V-AK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:07 -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 PAA08849 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APosO-0000jb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APosN-0000jY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:06:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APorO-00032N-MM; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APorB-00031u-2v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:04:49 -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 PAA08635 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APor7-0000gx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:04:45 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APor7-0000gf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:04:45 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: UTNXjDzfASfIzOG0vXU9Tw 1070049760 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E420644CED9; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:02:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC7A9DE.8070207@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification References: In-Reply-To: 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:02:38 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/28/2003 8:04 AM, Alan DeKok sent forth electrons to convey: > "Hector Santos" wrote: > >> I don't see any flaw in this logic. Anyone care to comment? > > > Try it with AOL's mail system. They're getting a billion spam > messages a day. Band-aids don't work if the patient is bleeding from > every square inch of their skin. AOL's broken servers should not be considered a dealbreaker. Sorry, but I just have to destroy the screwy idea that any anti-spam scheme AOL (Or the M$-Yahoo-AOL gang) won't agree to isn't useful. 1. AOL posts a FAQ to nanae that is some 4 YEARS out of date. (MIT posts it for them.) 2. AOL fights good antispam legislation: 3. AOL bounces spam to alleged senders instead of refusing it during the SMTP session. If AOL decides to put 0.0.0.0/0 in its LMTP entry, will that be a dealbreaker? Not IMO. The method under discussion is not a new idea, yes. It's a band-aid, but so is LMTP. Both ARE USEFUL! Especially as part of a spam-scoring-and-tagging system. LMTP is better because it's not something spammers can, as Yakov mentioned in a great post, easily defeat once it's prevalent enought that they care about it. I get lots of spam 'From:'/'MAIL FROM' my own email address already. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 15:35:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10380 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpKb-00041A-IN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASKZDTQ015441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpKb-00040y-Ci for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:13 -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 PAA10363 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpKZ-00012Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpKZ-00012W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpKQ-0003xB-T0; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpK2-0003wl-Hs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:38 -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 PAA10335 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpK1-000126-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:37 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpK0-000123-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:36 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:53 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2286158453; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:52 -0500 Message-ID: <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" , "Yakov Shafranovich" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:34:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > > Here is the illustration of why this method DOES NOT work: > > http://www.winserver.com/public/code/html-wcsap?&xml=1&from=junkuser_from_the_asrg_list_sometime_ago@yahoo.com This doesn't mean it DOES NOT work. It does work. It has pruned a majority of the false entries. Let me check my personal mail today...... 3 out of over 929 attempts got in since going to bed this morning and getting up now. That is a 99.7% success rate! > Note that junkuser_from_the_asrg_list_sometime_ago@yahoo.com surely does > not exist. Nevertheless, Yahoo answers "250" to all RCPT TOs in order to > avoid harvesting. YAHOO.COM, AOL.OCM and others accepts "billions" of mail therefore might deem it necessary to delay any mail validation process. Again, it does not mean it doesn't work. It means, these guys are the PROBLEM, but anyone in the mail server business knows that. You are comparing it against the AOL.COM, YAHOO.COM, etc. Yet, in the same breath, I read how these guys are trying to define or hijack your efforts. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 15:41:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10781 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpQK-0004fG-1a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASKf7om017924 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpQJ-0004f1-SL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:07 -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 PAA10741 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpQI-0001AH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpQI-0001AE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpQE-0004bE-9c; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpPW-0004Yb-Ob for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 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 PAA10709 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpPV-00019W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:40:17 -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 1APpPU-00019G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-362-071.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.128.216]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP2007LMXE1WD@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:39:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Anti-Spam Message-id: <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:39:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > YAHOO.COM, AOL.OCM and others accepts "billions" of mail therefore might > deem it necessary to delay any mail validation process. Again, it does not > mean it doesn't work. It means, these guys are the PROBLEM, but anyone in > the mail server business knows that. You are comparing it against the > AOL.COM, YAHOO.COM, etc. Yet, in the same breath, I read how these guys > are trying to define or hijack your efforts. There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from harvesting email addresses. Also, nothing prevents the spammers from doing the same thing for their domains. As for their "hijacking efforts", we are in touch with them about it. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 15:58:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11244 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpgr-00057D-Sx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASKwDEI019657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpgr-00056y-K5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:13 -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 PAA11221 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpgq-0001PA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpgp-0001P7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpgf-00050O-Qo; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APpfv-0004zi-SS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:15 -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 PAA11179 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpft-0001OF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:14 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APpft-0001OC-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:13 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03A7B0152; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Cc: Anti-Spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:57:06 -0500 Status: O At 3:39 PM -0500 11/28/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Hector Santos wrote: >>YAHOO.COM, AOL.OCM and others accepts "billions" of mail therefore might >>deem it necessary to delay any mail validation process. Again, it does not >>mean it doesn't work. It means, these guys are the PROBLEM, but anyone in >>the mail server business knows that. You are comparing it against the >>AOL.COM, YAHOO.COM, etc. Yet, in the same breath, I read how these guys >>are trying to define or hijack your efforts. > >There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from >harvesting email addresses. Also, nothing prevents the spammers from >doing the same thing for their domains. Such behavior is also not restricted to large consumer/recreational ISP-like mail systems. Many corporate mail systems have exterior SMTP faces that live on machines with no knowledge of the interior environment except how to get mail to it. The outside bastion mail servers deal with basic filtering, but have no way to know whether a particular address is valid or not. This is a simple security issue: machines with exterior exposure are not allowed to carry or even query confidential databases like the list of valid user names. There are arguments on all sides of this sort of configuration, but no amount of recommendation by an I[RE]TF body will change it. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 16:44:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12211 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqPW-0006Wp-SK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASLiMDQ025092 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqPW-0006Wd-N1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:22 -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 QAA12198 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqPU-0001tx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqPU-0001tu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqPB-0006T0-8Y; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqOe-0006Sm-Rn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:43:35 -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 QAA12193 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqOc-0001td-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:43:26 -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 1APqOX-0001ta-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:43:21 -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 1APqU8-0004I4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:49:08 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:02:38 PST." <3FC7A9DE.8070207@elvey.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, 28 Nov 2003 16:49:08 -0500 Status: O Matthew Elvey wrote: > The method under discussion is not a new idea, yes. It's a band-aid, > but so is LMTP. Both ARE USEFUL! I agree that both methods are useful. The difference is that the problem (spam) is a side-effect of a poorly designed system (open SMTP). Sender checks don't change the existing behaviour of SMTP. Instead, they (ab)use SMTP to discover some information about the sender which may, or may not, be true. (See what happens when the outgoing MTA isn't the MX for a domain...) Such "solutions" are therefore band-aids, because they attempt to lessen the impact of a problem, without fixing the root cause of that problem. That is, they try to recover from the problem, without preventing it in the first place. In contrast, systems which change the system design directly attack the root cause of the problem. The problem is therefore lessened because the potentials for abuse of the system are less. not because the abuse was discovered, and worked around. This is why firewalls are useful: they make certain classes of attacks impossible. This is also why firewalls are only one part of a security system: they don't prevent other classes of attacks. LMAP (and similar authentication systems) prevent senders from undetectably forging association with a domain. The problem of forgery therefore doesn't exist, and we're left with a sub-set of the problem, which is non-forged spam. If spammers had a better way of sending spam right now, they'd be using it. They're forging spam precisely because it's so beneficial to them. Therefore preventing such forgery should be a matter of serious interest in any anti-spam system. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 17:00:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12676 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqex-0006vC-Lv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASM0JbQ026590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqew-0006ug-S2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:18 -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 RAA12506 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqeu-00025W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqeu-00024v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqeh-0006n2-O9; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqe4-0006mP-1t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:59:24 -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 QAA12428 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqe1-00023O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:59:21 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqe1-00023L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:59:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 10113 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2003 16:59:19 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2003 16:59:19 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 2824 invoked by uid 101); 28 Nov 2003 16:59:19 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Jukka Inkeri , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX Message-ID: <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:59:19 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:43:32AM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Copy can be found here: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/16/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt > > Many people prefer the LMAP proposals that deal with regular "forward" > DNS than the MTA mark proposal that uses reverse DNS, because a usual > domain owner has control over regular DNS and does not have control over > reverse DNS. That's a very important point. On the other hand, it's IP space owners (er, delegees?) who often bear the brunt of complaints about how their space is used, and giving them some degree of authority is not necessarily bad. It's not like every proposal provides a complete answer: if one piece of the puzzle is to give IP space maintainers some say, then that may be one more positive step. I am curious (though I can guess, see below) why MTAMark chooses to overload the TXT result from a single DNS record rather than using DNS in a more natural way. For an address 10.0.0.1 MTAMark shows an example like: $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. 1 IN TXT "ASRG.MTA=yes" 1 IN TXT "ASRG.CONTACT=mailto:abuse@example.com" etc whereas it would seem to me more natural to use subdomaining: $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. mta.1 IN TXT "yes" contact.mta.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" making it easier to retrieve individual result records without overloading the results, sifting through and parsing the results, worrying about oversized DNS records, etc. My guess is that the proposal wants to include wildcards, but if that's the case I think that's not a great tradeoff, nor does it address anything smaller than /24 delegations (e.g. RFC2317). Besides, one could always handle the /24 wildcard entry in another way, such as: $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. ; default txt record(s) for this zone mta IN TXT "no" ; specifics per IP 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. mta.1 IN TXT "yes" contact.mta.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" Interestingly, an extended version of this sort of scheme could conceivably do away with the dyndns style dnsbls voluntary registrations. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 17:17:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13496 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:17:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqur-00086l-4U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASMGjED031161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APquq-00086W-U9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:44 -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 RAA13442 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APquo-0002Wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APquo-0002Wo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APquA-0007xL-3n; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APqtZ-0007wg-40 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:25 -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 RAA13374 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqtW-0002VG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:22 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APqtV-0002VC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:22 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:39 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2292203640; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:37 -0500 Message-ID: <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:15:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "ASRG" > > We have the CallerID Verification system now in place for at least 4-5 days. > > This method has drastically reduced the spam via unverified return paths, > > but practically 100%. > > > > The method you are refering is similar to what is more commonly known as > "Challenge/Response" (C/R). Majority of C/R implementation actually send > a message back to the sender asking him/her to click on a link to reply > to the message in order to verify that the sender exists. Not the same thing. WCSAP checks the MAIL FROM: state point. C/R systems go to the RCPT TO: statement, and in some cases complete the session. In our early exploration of this almost two years ago, it immediate apparent that it doesn't belong in the SMTP protocol, it is intrusion for our business customers and it doesn't quite work to solve the spammer problem. It is easily broken with a little bit of automation. > There are problems with the the regular C/R approaches that apply here > as well: > 1. Nothing stops a spammer from using someone else's email address with > that domain answering yes (unless you start matching the his email > address with his IP which is what the LMAP proposals do). Especially > this would be true if he uses YOUR domain. Our mail system does (optionally) check the return path domain against the connection IP. But more importantly, this puts the spammer into another category, namely, outright fraud. > Also, as per RFC 2822 you > must support MAIL FROM: <> which basically allows spammers to bypass > everything at this step. True, but that puts it into another category handle by other technical SMTP server designs. > 2. Even checking MAIL FROM does not prevent spammers from forging the > "From" header inside the actual email message. Doesn't apply. Again, the goal is no minimize reaching the RCPT TO: /DATA state in the SMTP state machine. > > While there are numerous problems with regular C/R, your particular > approach has some issues as well: > 1. Nothing stops a spammer from using his own domain which answers "yes" > to all RCPT TOs to that domain (BUT not an open relay). > 2. ISPs tend to play around with RCPT TO: handling such as answering > "yes" to all requests, or delaying responses in order to make sure > spammers do not use RCPT TO: for harvesting email addresses. Again, this is to verify the existence of the domain which is a good bit of the problem, and in addition, helps address the fraud. > 3. Since your proposal operates at the MAIL FROM step, if the sender's > receiving MTA is off-line this process will fail. This will also be a > problem if the sender is using GreyListing > (http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/). According to RFC 2821, > section 4.5.4.1., the originator must be able to resend email several > times when temporary failure occurs, which in practice happens sometimes. Handled with a 4xx response when the connect and/or welcome response indicates so. > > As I noted to you via EMAIL, our system allows for programmable hooks at > > each step of the protocol state machine: > > > > connect --> connect IP validate hook > > Would this be an rDNS / RBL hook? Yes. As it is currently implemented, plus admins White/Black IP lists. > > > HELO/EHLO ---> helo/ehlo validate hook > > What kind of hook are you using here? If a spammer uses a valid domain > here, nothing stops him. Only something like LMAP/DRIP that ties IP > addresses with domain names for SMTP can help against that. As currently implemented, our server offers strict HELO requirements (for intranets), but internally the server watches for fake domains, badly formatted dot IP addresses, etc. This has help eliminate a large percentage of the illegal entry attempts. Here is a log snippet: ************************************************************************** Wildcat! SMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 SMTP log started at Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:21:31 Connection Time : 20031128 01:21:30 Client IP Address: 24.92.200.21 (unknown) SSL Enabled: NO 01:21:31 S: 220 winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready 01:21:31 C: HELO 208.247.131.9 01:21:31 S: 501 Invalid HELO client address. Since implementing a HELO/EHLO check, we have noticed a drastic redundant of certain type of spammers stop connecting to our system. Their "software" does not work here. > > MAIL FROM: ---> mail from validate hook > > What kind of hook aside from this proposal are you using here? In our SMTP server design, just wants a response from an external source. Currentlty, we have optional strong MAIL FROM: requirements (for intranets). We implemented the WCSAP hook. And I recently contacted you to see if how fast I can test our a "wcRMX" hook. But that C code was not "API" or coder ready. I started a small effort to make it useable as a API but then said, "What about the DNS database?" It am sure it will work, but this presents an entirely different non-dynamic "administrative" non-technical issue. > > What happens with 4xx codes? or if the MTA is off-line? Supported. 4xx is used for MX and/or MTA connection failures. WCSAP also includes a "TryMXOnce" where per the RFC if there is no MX, it tries the DOMAIN IP. Just a standard mail sender. > JamSpam seems to be currently dead. The folks involved could not agree > on anything so it fell apart. Maybe so, but I am not too sure if they did not accomplish the goal of allowing a legitimizing a classification of spam to be unrestricted at the system level. This "David" guy did attend the congressional hearings. Was IETG represented? I have not read the ANTI-SPAM congress bills yet, but from what I understand so far, it sounds like it may have opened up the opportunity for spammers to claim tortious interference against an ISP or for that matter, mail software vendor. This is why I believe we need to make sure the SMTP PROTOCOL and its "access" methodologies are purely technical in mind based on security aspects of the system. The SMTP protocol should have NO business in the analysis of mail content, with the exception of possibility checking headers for technical conformity. > > You probably discussed it already, but the technical standards should > > indicate and emphasize restrictions to the transports protocol is purely > > technical. EMAIL SYSTEMS invalid handshaking is all the IETF should be > > looking at to simplified this process. To go any further, simply will > > complicate things and give JAMSPAM proponents a reason to exist. Their > > layman argument is purely based on the legacy operations of the SMTP system. > > Imposed stronger state point handshaking and these people have no basis for > > argument other than "social." > > > > What kind of controls are we talking about? Something like LMAP? Any proposal that is based on authorizing the secured handshaking between the client and server BEFORE the RCPT TO: is reached. > RFC 2821 states (sections 3.3, 4.1.1.4 and 6.1) that the SMTP server .... I clearly understand this. It doesn't apply. This is after the client/server handshaking has been negotiated. > It will only work if most of the mail systems on the Internet comply > with it. The IETF cannot force compliance with its standards. Right, but the market will. Any current vendor (big and small) who is serious about their mail server functionality in address the "spam problem" will do something about it, especially the smaller vendors as it see it as a market opportunity agains the bigger legacy systems. Its a common trait in many industries where change is first followed by newer or smaller vendors. > Therefore, partly what we are seeking is an incremental solution as stated in the > technical considerations document In understand and I agree. This is why I like the RFC changes be made to address stronger client/server negotiations at the TECHICAL level elimination any notion that the protocol is in the business of many "questionable" and "debateble" logic towards the mail content. In my view, if IETG does not do this, you will force the "vendors" to move towards a central authority entity concept, aka what the Verisign people are proposing. > We are open to hearing how the existing SMTP protocol may be tightened > but its must be proven that this will solve the problem. I think you got all the technical proposals already. Again, this is a technical issue of resolving how a CLIENT and SERVER talk to each other. You need to borrow technology has been in existence and worked in the past. Such as Fidonet. Randy Bush (if this is the same person that was involved with Fidonet) clearly knows how this system does work, yet, at the same time, understands there are administrative nightmares when trying to maintain a "membership database." This is probably why he is resistance to DNSSEC and to a large degree why I don't particularity like the ramifications of having a DNS membership database controlling access. However, it can help the process to if this DNS database includes attributes that augment the client/server negotiation process. For example: Type of system: OPEN, CLOSE, SEMI-CLODE Type of mail: SpamAllowed, Commerical Spam, No Spam Hours: 0-24 SPAM: 1-3 etc, etc. Use the opportunity to not just address SPAM but other technical issues the current mail transport specs do not address. Hours of operation will HELP a growiing amount of the "small or home busines" operations with limited bandwidth or non-full time mail operations. In Fidonet, there was a few requirements. One was a ZONE HOUR where all operations must be open for mail. We can extend this logic to include a "BOUNCE HOUR" or "SPAM HOURS", etc. In my view, a proposal that is based on a DNS modification will benefit (more plausible) from extending the functionality of the system, not just ad dresing spam. > I am sure that you will allow for more than "4-5 days of testing" before > deploying this. We are going gamma sometime next week. Nothing better than getting excited people to test it in real operations. Obviously, between you, I and the fencepost, the first wave will be "more beta." > IF you are rejecting email at the MAIL FROM stage, there is now way to > check for false positives since you do not have the actual email > message. Doesn't apply. Again, I am from the SCHOOL that SMTP has no business in analyzing mail content. That is what is going to get you in trouble and FEED the legal eagles. The goal is CONFORMITY of the client/server session. If a MAIL FROM: FAILS, the client has no business going any futher. If the MAIL FROM: succeeds, then WCSAP has done its part and it up to the next stages, if any, to do checking. This is why the RFC needs to concentrate their efforts in the first 3 states: connect HELO/EHLO MAIL FROM: The problems with AOL, YAHOO, etc with allowing all RCPT TO: is because of the dearth of control at the above states. Solve this and the major issues will be addressed. Then we might see the YAHOO, AOL, etc comply. > Additionally, your specific test installation might not be > large enough to extrapolate to the entire Internet. If you can provide > additional statistical information, that would be useful. I got over 6 months of logs and collected mail that was accepted or filtered at the DATA stage. Most of the false positives exist at the DATA stage because of the external mail filtering rules in use. 3rd party software such as wcSpamGuard for the WIldcat System (http://www.wssoft.net) hook into the DATA stage and provide a suite of mail filtering methods for the system and for users. > > The following sections from the technical considerations document are > relevant: > > " 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. > " Yet to borrow a quote: "The Internet was: small, friendly, open, casual. The internet has become: Huge, Competitive, Closed/Open, Casual/Formal." An unaffiliated view of Electronic Commerce, Dave Crocker, 1995 So you see from this that Mr. Crocker fully understood back in 1995 where we were heading. Corporations have ditched their NOVEL or X.400 system, or Lotus Notes system, etc. The same vendors, including ourselves have integrated internet technology into their software. There is no REASON to believe it can't happen again. Look, I have only one reason why we began efforts to add anti-spam solutions into our system, my customers! They are the ones who want a solution or one that makes it less of a problem. If I don't provide them, they LOOK else where. Its that simple. I am not going to wait. Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ---- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 17:42:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14305 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrJT-0000SX-Al for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASMgB4J001759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrJT-0000SI-6X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:11 -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 RAA14299 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrJQ-0002w9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrJQ-0002w6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrJI-0000OT-Or; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrIO-0000LT-Sz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:04 -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 RAA14237 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrIM-0002v2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:02 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrIL-0002uz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:01 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:19 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2293745312; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <006201c3b600$b818e3c0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" , "Alan DeKok" References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:41:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > > Am I seeing things? Why isn't the group homing in on this method which > > basically says that the return path must be valid? > > As noted in another message, a number of people *are* using this > method. Yes, I understood this. Never claim it to be the first. But we just implemented and in my expert opinion, it is the best solution out there today to eliminate a majority of the spam, yet at the same time, first into the protocol and doesn't required a change the DNS records. However, I clearly understand how having "extra" information at the DNS level will help the process. But that isn't there yet. > The problem with it is that it's a band-aid. Most software solutions are "band-aids." I don't consider this a BAND-AID because it is LOGIC that naturally and logically fits into MAIL FROM: state point in the SMTP protocol state machine. Is it 100%? No. It is not, for the obvious and stated reasons. > The purpose of ASRG is to see if there are other methods which will > reduce the spam problem. e.g. Reducing the amount of spam sent, which is very different than > reducing the amount of spam received. ASRG should change their emphasis and concentrate on REDUCING unauthorized MTA at the protocol level. SPAM is only a symptom of the dearth of such controls. e.g. The Caller ID methods prove that MAIL FROM: (and HELO/EHLO) validation is (should be) a SMTP functional protocol (optional) requirement. How it is done is a technical and implementation issue. In other words, there is NOTHING that should be stopping the IETF from modifying the RFC to say: x.x.x HELO/EHLO The client host domain may be subject to mail server implementation validated with the following response codes: x.x.x MAIL FROM: The client return path may be subject to mail server implementation validated with the following response codes: it has nothing to do with the technical implementations or how a mail server will accomplish this. On the other hand, if the ASRG/IETF is looking to add some "details" to the specification: x.x.x MAIL FROM: The client return path may be subject to mail server implementation validated with the following response codes: .... The following RFC methods are recommended approaches. then even better. But Yakov has said, you can't force everyone to use any particular method. Others may find a better method or something that is more internal to their operations. The goal is that it should be a functionally defined in the specification to help designers do a better job, and in addition help eliminate any future LEGAL issues brought on by spammers. For systems to reject connecting MTA, it has to be because of lack of technical compliance. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 17:48:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14416 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrPN-0000hd-P4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASMmHgB002693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrPN-0000h5-G8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:17 -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 RAA14393 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrPK-00031H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrPK-00031B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrP6-0000cg-Mn; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrON-0000cL-39 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:15 -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 RAA14374 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrOK-00030T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:12 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrOJ-00030Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:11 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip74-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.74]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EF63C36EF7 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:28 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS Message-ID: <20031128224727.GA10063@m433> References: <3FC26859.2080307@solidmatrix.com> <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> <3FC52972.9020405@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC52972.9020405@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:47:27 -0500 Status: O On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:30:10PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > Mailing lists and USENET groups work with email. When someone responds > to a mailing list, he does so via email. Two questions stick one: (1) > Are there utilities for mailing lists today that interact with both > email and RSS, including MUAs; and (2) what happens if a spammer sends > spam to the list, it still clogs up the list. I didn't make myself clear. I propose that list members still email *TO* lists, but that the lists *NOT EMAIL TO THE LIST MEMBERS*. The members would pull (poll?) the list-server. The bottom line will not change for legitimate lists, except that the list members would pull the results. This could be any of several methods... nntp, RSS, reading on a web-board, whatever. One positive side-effect is that pull feeds wouldn't suffer from aggressive spam filters. The obvious question this raises is why bother if it's not going to really change the final result for legitimate lists. The problem is that legitimate mailing lists, including this one, provide plausible deniability, and a figleaf of respectability to the Yesmails, Topicas, and E-Dialogs of this world. They can claim that people subscribed to their mailings just like we subscribed to this list. There are some legitimate clients, but the big mailers are effectively open relays for anybody who walks in with a check and "Millions CD". I do not believe that the commercial e-mail-blasting industry can be reformed to legitimate opt-in. They have a financial incentive to accept money from anybody. Once there are no more legitimate mailing lists, then *ALL* broadcast mailing lists will be known to be illegitimate, and can be safely blocked. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 18:14:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15746 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AProV-0001ZQ-2A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASNEFsd006030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AProU-0001ZB-Tz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:14 -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 SAA15697 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AProS-0003Fj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AProR-0003Fg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AProG-0001VW-S9; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APrne-0001Th-1p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:22 -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 SAA15611 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrnb-0003F7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:19 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APrna-0003F3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:18 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip74-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.74]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C5B1370EC for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:36 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS Message-ID: <20031128231336.GB10063@m433> References: <20031126222431.GA6231@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:13:36 -0500 Status: O On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:15:46AM +1030, Chris wrote > This sounds strikingly similar to the http push er push of a few years ago. > > remember everyone would have an "active desktop" and news and stories of > interest would be pushed to the user. > > Does any one remember how successful that was? > > the "http push" was in fact a pull system, the user would pull on to his > desktop feeds (RSS) from their favourite sources > > if it failed then, what's changed ? The whole point was that it failed because people didn't want most of that garbage... just like they don't want most of the garbage that gets rammed down their inboxes today. The only real difference was that people got to excercise freedom of choice about whether or not to be bombarded with advertising. Given a choice between the collapse of email as a usable personal communications medium, versus the collapse of Yesmail, Topica, E-Dialog, etc, I prefer the latter. The whole point behind my proposal is to remove any figleaf of respectability that these outfits have. They claim that 15% of their "legitimate business email" is being blocked. Now lwt's work on the other 85%. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 18:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16562 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APsRC-0002ZX-Ho for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hASNsEiY009881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APsRB-0002ZF-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:13 -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 SAA16548 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APsR8-0003bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APsR8-0003bI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APsQz-0002Ve-6j; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APsQw-0002V0-9T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:58 -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 SAA16539 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APsQt-0003b2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:55 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APsQs-0003az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 18323 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2003 18:53:54 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2003 18:53:54 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 22854 invoked by uid 101); 28 Nov 2003 18:53:54 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Jukka Inkeri , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX Message-ID: <20031128235353.GA20232@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.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, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:54 -0500 Status: O > > My guess is that the proposal wants to include wildcards, but if that's > the case I think that's not a great tradeoff, nor does it address anything > smaller than /24 delegations (e.g. RFC2317). Besides, one could always > handle the /24 wildcard entry in another way, such as: > > $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. > ; default txt record(s) for this zone > mta IN TXT "no" > ; specifics per IP > 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. > mta.1 IN TXT "yes" > contact.mta.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" Or even: $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. ; defaults *.mta IN TXT "no" *.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" ; specifics per IP 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. 1.mta IN TXT "yes" 1.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse-1@example.com" mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 19:59:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18114 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APtRg-0004Zz-L2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT0wmTh017597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APtRg-0004Zk-Ev for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:48 -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 TAA18088 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APtRe-0004PE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:46 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APtRe-0004PB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APtQu-0004RF-T2; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APtQ0-0004QF-Bl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:57:04 -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 TAA18041 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APtPy-0004NU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:57:02 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APtPx-0004NA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:57:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 74473 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 00:56:54 -0000 Received: from frsc-dialdyna3c-66-228-140-22.advantexcom.net (66.228.140.22) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2003 00:56:54 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.228.140.22 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. Update from the Analysis & Characterization Group Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:57:57 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Here's a brief update from the small but highly motivated A&C subgroup. There are multiple experiments underway, at various stages of completion. A&C members are looking at where spam comes from, comparing specific characterization/filtering technologies, and in general trying substitute empirical data for opinion on almost anything related to spam. Two recent experiments have now borne fruit. One's interesting enough, though not exactly Earth-shattering; the other is much more portentious. 1) We undertook an experiment to address the seemingly commonplace belief that "different people get different spam." For purposes of this experiment, we analyzed two large samples of spam (several-K relatively recent messages, gathered independently), as well as multiple smaller samples. Result: Within nominal limits, everyone gets pretty much the same spam. While there *may* be such a thing as "targeted" spam (which might result from, say, subbing to a particular list or ordering a particular product), the volume of that spam is dwarfed by the "shotgun" spam that everyone gets. 2) We undertook an experiment to address the equally commonplace belief that "spam is volatile," and that spam and spammer tactics change rapidly. This experiment was based on analysis of about 2,500 spams accumulated over a period of 2.5 years. Result: "Glacial" maybe, but "volatile"?? The closest we've been able to come to identifying "volatility" is a kind of "punctuated equilibrium" model. Spam does change over time, but *very* slowly. We hope to present the first set of results from this experiment at the MIT spam conference in January. We're also looking at conducting a follow-on experiment, and, if the results cooperate, envision a submission to CACM early next year. 3) Though not an experiment _per se_, we're currently trying to knock down testable theories about why any two addresses that are *seemingly* nearly-identical in terms of visibility get gob-smackingly different amounts of spam. Several obvious possibilities were refuted very quickly, while others have not yet been refuted. (On behalf of A&C, I'd like to thank Scott Nelson for recently taking the time to help us refute one candidate theory.) (This latter effort may not sound like much, but unless we can eliminate that "pre-existing" variance, or at least learn enough about it to factor it out, any sort of fruitful/meaningful real-time volumetric study is probably impossible.) (We now return to regularly scheduled ASRG content.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 20:53:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19094 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuIG-00065f-2w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT1r8cQ023405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuIF-00065Q-OK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:07 -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 UAA19087 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuID-0004xV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuIC-0004xS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuI9-00063C-3g; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuHG-00062p-GR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:52:07 -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 UAA19083 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuHD-0004xI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:52:03 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com ([208.31.42.38]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuHC-0004xF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:52:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 11258 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 01:50:14 -0000 Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 29 Nov 2003 01:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Nov 2003 20:50:14 -0500 Status: O I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam labelling standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that don't accept spam. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Nov 28 21:31:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19664 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APutF-0007L2-5d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT2VL9Q028202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APutF-0007Kn-0o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:21 -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 VAA19657 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APutC-0005Iu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APutB-0005Ir-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APusw-0007Gv-8R; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APus7-0007GR-UV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:30:11 -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 VAA19636 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APus5-0005IV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:30:09 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APus4-0005IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:30:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 67475 invoked by uid 1013); 29 Nov 2003 02:30:06 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX Message-ID: <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:30:06 +0100 Status: O On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:59:19PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > Many people prefer the LMAP proposals that deal with regular "forward" > > DNS than the MTA mark proposal that uses reverse DNS, because a usual > > domain owner has control over regular DNS and does not have control over > > reverse DNS. > > That's a very important point. And it's a different approach to what should be accomplished ;-) > On the other hand, it's IP space owners (er, delegees?) who often > bear the brunt of complaints about how their space is used, and > giving them some degree of authority is not necessarily bad. It's > not like every proposal provides a complete answer: if one piece > of the puzzle is to give IP space maintainers some say, then that > may be one more positive step. Let's have an example: My company is example.COM. I have a publicly accessible company network say (example! ;-) 10.0.1.0/32. I can now use the LMAP approach and make one designated MTA for my domain: mail.example.com on IP 10.0.1.25. This saves me from joe jobs (if other participate in LMAP) as no MTA will accept eMails with addresses @example.com from any other IP address than 10.0.1.25 (or according to the LMAP configuration of course). Perfect. Now there is another company, let's call it example.ORG. They do not have LMAP records in place, so any MTA will accept messages with addresses @example.ORG from any IP. It will accept the messages also from 10.0.1.0/32, even if I use LMAP. So if a workstation in my net is compromised it can be abused as a spam relay. Same holds for viri. There is no chance to tell other mailservers: don't accept eMails from 10.0.1.1. MTAmark fills that gap and gives (optionally) a contact address. We don't see MTAmark as a concurring proposal to LMAP. Those two fit together and complement themselves. > whereas it would seem to me more natural to use subdomaining: > > $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. > 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. > mta.1 IN TXT "yes" > contact.mta.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" > > making it easier to retrieve individual result records without > overloading the results, sifting through and parsing the results, > worrying about oversized DNS records, etc. > My guess is that the proposal wants to include wildcards, but if that's > the case I think that's not a great tradeoff, nor does it address anything > smaller than /24 delegations (e.g. RFC2317). Besides, one could always > handle the /24 wildcard entry in another way, such as: Your guess is right ;-) With your example there are more DNS queries involved, as one has to lookup "mta.1" and "contact.mta.1" but with our proposal it can be handled with one lookup, as a TXT query will be answered containing all TXT records. However you are right that this may often be unnecessary. > Or even: > $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. > ; defaults > *.mta IN TXT "no" > *.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" > ; specifics per IP > 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. > 1.mta IN TXT "yes" > 1.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse-1@example.com" This will not work in case of e.g. $ORIGIN 0.10.in-addr.arpa. whereas the wildcard example from our proposal would. You would have to specify $ORIGIN 0.10.in-addr.arpa. *.mta.1 IN TXT "no" *.contact.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" *.mta.2 IN TXT "no" *.contact.2 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" which could be solved with BIND's COMPUTE statement, but that's specific to BIND. Anyway, I'll think about that over the weekend ;-) \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 Nov 28 21:37:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19778 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuyo-0007Z7-Dz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT2b5pt029075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuym-0007Ys-V3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:04 -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 VAA19758 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:36:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuyk-0005Np-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuyj-0005Nm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuyi-0007UL-NC; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APuyV-0007Tn-6t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:36:47 -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 VAA19755 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuyS-0005Nj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:36:44 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APuyR-0005Ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:36:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 67692 invoked by uid 1013); 29 Nov 2003 02:36:43 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX Message-ID: <20031129023642.GB65913@Space.Net> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:36:42 +0100 Status: O On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:36:39AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Absolutely, reverse DNS has not been generally considered a critical > infrastructure, nobody uses it today except for debugging. This is not true. > The other practical problem is that there are machines with several hundred > thousand email domains parked on one machine. Did you read the MTAmark proposal at all? Your above statement is neither a problem nor is it in any way related to the MTAmark propsal. With MTAmark you "mark MTAs" as being such. If there is a MTA running on the machine with several hundred thousand email domains parked and the MTA should be a Internet wide sending MTA it is marked as such. If the machine is only a webserver that should not send out emails it is marked "MTA=no". It is irrelevant whether there is one domain associated with that machine or 10000000. MTAmark is a way to tell other MTAs "accept email from that IP" or "do not accept email from that IP". This is the only criterion and given the zillions of hacked, 0wned, misconfigured and virus contaminated machines out there it is IMHO an important one. \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 Nov 28 23:39:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23006 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APwsm-0004J4-GH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:39:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT4d0gc016551 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APwsj-0004Is-QF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:38:57 -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 XAA23003 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APwsh-00074N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:38:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APwsg-00074J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:38:54 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APwrq-0004Ac-Sk; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APwrf-00047t-3A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:37:51 -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 XAA22989 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APwrc-00073i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:37:48 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APwrb-00073f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:37:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 11206 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2003 23:37:47 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2003 23:37:47 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 9074 invoked by uid 101); 28 Nov 2003 23:37:46 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Markus Stumpf Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX Message-ID: <20031129043746.GC27446@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031129023006.GA65913@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, 28 Nov 2003 23:37:46 -0500 Status: O On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:30:06AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > We don't see MTAmark as a concurring proposal to LMAP. Those two fit > together and complement themselves. Agreed- I tried to say that too :-) > > My guess is that the proposal wants to include wildcards > > [etc] > Your guess is right ;-) > With your example there are more DNS queries involved, as one has to > lookup "mta.1" and "contact.mta.1" but with our proposal it can be > handled with one lookup, as a TXT query will be answered containing all > TXT records. > However you are right that this may often be unnecessary. Right, considering that you don't always need to lookup the contact address. Plus the caching nature of DNS reduces the DNS traffic between any mail servers that communicate frequently. Extra queries sound like (and are) more work - but the mere fact of extra work does not mean it's unreasonable. (You'd have to consider the current load and the likelihood of the new load: if there is currently one DNS lookup per connection, and you are adding one, the DNS load doubles. But if there are currently five lookups and you add one more 10% of the time, the DNS load increases by a factor of about 2%, some of which goes only as far as the local cache. I am not trying to give numbers, just suggesting that it's not obviously a severe penalty.) My initial reaction is that I'd probably prefer a little more DNS traffic if it meant a cleaner database. (Everyone has opinions, right? anyway that's mine.) Opinion aside, one question is what would be the real burden imposed by an extra DNS lookup, contrasted with the (IMHO) gain in data organization. > > > Or even: > > $ORIGIN 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. > > ; defaults > > *.mta IN TXT "no" > > *.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" > > ; specifics per IP > > 1 IN PTR mail.example.com. > > 1.mta IN TXT "yes" > > 1.contact IN TXT "mailto:abuse-1@example.com" > > This will not work in case of e.g. > $ORIGIN 0.10.in-addr.arpa. > > whereas the wildcard example from our proposal would. You would have > to specify > $ORIGIN 0.10.in-addr.arpa. > *.mta.1 IN TXT "no" > *.contact.1 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" > *.mta.2 IN TXT "no" > *.contact.2 IN TXT "mailto:abuse@example.com" Yeah, I see what you mean. But again what's the real burden? How many in-addr.arpa delegations are there where the same organization that is delegated the in-addr.arpa zone corresponding to a /16 is the same organization that is delegated the in-addr for a /24 ? And for them, how much of a problem is it to populate each of the in-addr.arpa's for each /24 ? If it's an issue, it's probably somewhere down at the noise level. > which could be solved with BIND's COMPUTE statement, but that's specific > to BIND. hmm, $generate maybe? I think that's a hack that's better solved by zone generation tools :-) > Anyway, I'll think about that over the weekend ;-) Thanks, -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 01:34:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25775 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APygV-0008SV-Ay for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT6YRu3032509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APygV-0008SG-1j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:27 -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 BAA25764 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APygR-0000n3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:23 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APygR-0000n0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1APygQ-0005ld-KI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APyg5-0008OR-CM; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1APyfj-0008OG-HN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:33:40 -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 BAA25736 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APyfg-0000mD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:33:36 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1APyff-0000m9-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:33:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B864A9E5; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:33:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19471-01-7; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:33:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA694AA23; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:33:33 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id AD8FBF3280; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:33:32 -0600 (CST) To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Chris , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Asrg@ietf.org References: <3FC531A9.4050007@solidmatrix.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <3FC531A9.4050007@solidmatrix.com> Message-ID: Lines: 46 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p5 at rice.edu Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Nov 2003 00:33:32 -0600 Status: O On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:13 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich writes: > Chris wrote: > >>>this is a research group. we should research and then make > >>>recommendations > >> > >>This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. > >>The scope is > >>control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. > >> > >>BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is > >>wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible. > > Please re read my original post > > > I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words > > pull *IS* smtp > > with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny > > both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED > > > > > The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be > answered before going into minute details of implementation. Pull might help stop spam. Right now, a sender system only has to exist to inject a single message for it to get through. With a pull mechanism, the sender must remain at a stable IP address for at least a few hours to a few days. Sending systems can't be ephemeral anymore. By a pull system what I mean is a system where a sender pushes an announcement that a message is ready. A recipient then 'pulls' the message from the sender at a later time just as they are. The push message contains a nonce for retrieval and a cryptographic digest of the message. With a pull system, you can 'retroactively' block access to messages sent from malicious serveres, by exploiting the hours or days between being sent and being read. This is because the messages have yet to be distributed to a million mailboxes. Whether or not this is worth a protocol change I won't say, but it is another mechanism. I hate to say it, but from reading ASRG, people seem unwilling to make hard choices. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 03:12:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA10352 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ0DG-0005qu-Nn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT8CMod022496 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ0DG-0005ql-B0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:22 -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 DAA10346 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ0DE-0001sT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ0DD-0001sQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ0Cu-0005oH-NC; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ0CY-0005ni-U4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:11:38 -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 DAA10336 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ0CU-0001s8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:11:34 -0500 Received: from www.tietokate.fi ([194.197.204.196] helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ0CU-0001s5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:11:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 32026 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 08:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Jimiboy) (212.213.48.177) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2003 08:11:17 -0000 Message-ID: <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:11:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Elvey" To: Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:06 PM Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals [cut] > >MTAMark draft tells us the problem (from the spam point of view), > >and they have done great job, but I think it's a little too complicated > >to maintain. It may require configuration per domain if virtual > >domains have their own MX setup (this does not apply to all setups). > >Also, I don't like parsing TXT records (Parsing == bugs == troubles). > >Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT records, too. Some Bind versions > >send extra character (space or ") (parser bug?) whereas Tinydns doesn't. > >Conclusion: I'm against TXT records. > > > > > A bug in the TXT part of software that has known security holes and MUST > be replaced anyway isn't a deal breaker, IMO; I'm assuming these bugs > are only in old versions. It's easy to say "must", but lot harder to get all the servers upgraded. It isn't deal breaker; MTAMark has very good qualities (and I think I had a little misunderstanding on my side here about it). > >RMX records (Do not confuse with Reverse MX records) is domain specific. > >It's simply a list of IP addresses that can send email from some domain. > >In reality, some of the users may use just about any sending SMTP > >server [depending on their ISP]. For example, I have a client that > >operates in couple of countries, each using different ISP, yet the > >incoming MTA is always the same, outgoing MTA is never the same. > >They could be using SMTPAUTH, but instead they use email server > >of ISP to send out messages. Do you think I could do something > >about it? Should I administrate a list of outgoing mail servers for my > >client in this case? No. It's not my job, so I'm against it and I believe > >most of the administrators are against it. Also, RMX requires new > >record type, that some bind versions refuse to send out. > > > > > Argument built on a false foundation. Your client isn't using "just > about any sending SMTP server". A short list of the IPs of the SMTP > servers of the two (or 20) ISPs your client uses is 0.0% of the SMTP > servers on the 'net. Well, I'll give an example: client operates in more than 20 countries, has travelling salesmen and agents in many countries. Yet, they all use same email domain and everyone uses their current ISP to send out messages. Notice: Travelling salesman maybe connecting even from hotel network. >From my point of view; outgoing MTA can be any server in the world. How could I know I should temporarily add record for MTA of some ISP the hotel is using ? I agree that domain specific configuration would be better, but it's simply another layer of control. I think we should have network level control (legitimate MTAs for some network) AND we should have domain level control. The whole problem of SMTP is that it has had no control mechanisms at all. Anyway, at this point I think the network is nearest (and easiest; IMHO) control mechanism and at this point my interest is on the network centric approach. When IP addresses get restricted, the spammers will have to use those servers that are "trusted" and it's lot easier to point the spammer from a known IP list than from approx. 2^32 IP addresses. Spammers are a moving target, changing their sending MTA all the time and I'd like to make them a sitting target. Bad behaving networks can be blocked out using RBL. > Under the "rMX and rDNS co-operate" scheme, this list is of IPs trusted > (i.e. listed) by people who have often proven untrustworthy. This is true, we will have problems if the network administrators are untrustworthy. However, if 20% of network administrators are untrustworthy and 80% are trustworthy then I'll be happy to RBL the untrustworthy networks away. > >Reverse MX > >MTAMark http://www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt > >RMX Records http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ > > > > > LMAP: > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 29 04:11:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11532 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ18I-0008Vc-0l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT9BHVO032702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ18G-0008VN-5W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:16 -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 EAA11529 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ18D-0002aV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ18D-0002aS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ183-0008T0-57; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:11:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ17e-0008Re-Ql for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:10:38 -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 EAA11503 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ17Y-0002a2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:10:32 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ17X-0002Zu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:10:31 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQ17Y-0008W6-Ad for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:10:32 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:10:32 +0000 Status: O > > > > RFC 2821 states (sections 3.3, 4.1.1.4 and 6.1) that the SMTP server > has two options: accept or reject the message, and has two options to > send back OK or Failure (5xx). HOWEVER, once the message has been > accepted as per this section (6.1): > > " When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" > message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for > delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility [snip] > If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the > receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This > Therefore, the RFC does dictate what should been done with the message > once it has been filtered. Even though many anti-spam systems honor this > "in breach", this is another illustration of how protocols affect other > things, even filtering. > Absolutely, but of course it's not clear that any recipient or administratively authorised disposition of the message can count as "delivery failure". I'm not sure that silent failures due to filtering *are* contrary to this recommendation. Some say it's better for rejection to be earlier and explicit, but successfully delivering to /dev/null isn't prohibited anywhere I can think of. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 04:36:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11925 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1Wl-0000mV-3E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT9aYbf002997 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1Wg-0000mG-UF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:30 -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 EAA11905 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1Wd-0002r1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1Wd-0002qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1WD-0000gx-Cz; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1Vy-0000gf-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:35:46 -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 EAA11893 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1Vv-0002qP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:35:43 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1Vu-0002qM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:35:42 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQ1Vv-000319-C0 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:35:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:35:43 +0000 Status: O > Such behavior is also not restricted to large consumer/recreational > ISP-like mail systems. Many corporate mail systems have exterior SMTP > faces that live on machines with no knowledge of the interior > environment except how to get mail to it. The outside bastion mail > servers deal with basic filtering, but have no way to know whether a > particular address is valid or not. This is a simple security issue: > machines with exterior exposure are not allowed to carry or even > query confidential databases like the list of valid user names. > There are arguments on all sides of this sort of configuration, but > no amount of recommendation by an I[RE]TF body will change it. > One of the arguments against it is that it's just plain dumb. It doesn't of itself stop the confidential data leaking (I can send you a bunch of messages and figure it out from the bounces), but it does make you have to handle bounces to forged addresses in your domains (since remote systems can't do sender verification against you). And of course you've got all the spam addressed to former employees (etc) eating up disk and CPU. But like you say, it's difficult to change the perception that obscurity -> security. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 04:59:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12309 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1sn-0001fm-6O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAT9xLIO006424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1sl-0001fX-9g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:19 -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 EAA12289 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1si-00034r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1sh-00034o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1sT-0001bY-OZ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ1sD-0001bB-KP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:58:45 -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 EAA12265 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:58:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1s5-000349-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:58:37 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ1s5-000342-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:58:37 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQ1s6-0005u0-D7; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:58:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "John R Levine" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:58:38 +0000 Status: O > I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam labelling > standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that > don't accept spam. > > What does this mean? I have users who wish to receive commercial email that they haven't explicitly solicited. Does this mean I should have UCE PLEASE in my banners? I have other users who are more normal, so should I have NO UCE (FOR THE MOST PART) in my banners? Or what? This proposition is contrary to the recipient-consent basis that this group is chartered on. I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by one of the co-chairs. Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 06:45:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13712 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ3XO-0005HY-0c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATBjLv0020298 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ3XN-0005HJ-QH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:21 -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 GAA13709 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ3XJ-000410-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ3XJ-00040x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ3X3-0005Ex-Hs; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ3Wh-0005ES-1J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:44:39 -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 GAA13699 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:44:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ3Wc-00040l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:44:34 -0500 Received: from smtp14.fre.skanova.net ([195.67.227.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ3Wc-00040i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:44:34 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp14.fre.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hATBiVMS011155; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:44:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: Cc: 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 12:44:33 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices. The SMTP protocol is old, ideal for spammers and inefficient. Any textbook covering communication between tiers have one basic rule: avoid communication as much as possible. The ideal solution is to send all at once and if necessary receive a receipt containing the data you want or an error message. Any new standard ought to be built on this simple principle. Why HELO? Send everything and let the receiving server go through the sender's data returning the appropriate answer. To implement a pull system you do not need a concensus among mail server administrators. A pull server ought to send a notofication all at once. If an error message is returned the mail is sent using SMTP. If a client hails a pull server with a special code the communication is done using a pull protocol otherwise it is done using SMTP/POP. To implement a pull system (client and server) would take at most two weeks full job. Actually my students are going to test the idea in a final lab in a web service course. Using web service technologies is probably not the most efficient way but to test the idea it is sufficient. /DK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 07:17:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14241 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ42D-0006hs-BL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATCHD1J025763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ42C-0006hI-6A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:12 -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 HAA14206 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ42B-0004OO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ42A-0004OK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ421-0006a5-SV; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ41c-0006ZJ-5y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:36 -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 HAA14200 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ41b-0004Kl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:35 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ41b-0004Ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7CD4AB69; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:16:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00894-02-23; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:16:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F0F4AB51; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:16:32 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 0696FF3280; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:16:31 -0600 (CST) To: "Dag Kihlman" Cc: References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Message-ID: Lines: 40 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p5 at rice.edu Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Nov 2003 06:16:31 -0600 Status: O On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:44:33 +0100, "Dag Kihlman" writes: > I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices. That wasn't the comment I was making. More so that it seems that there's two threads: 1. Email servers should be authenticated and authorized to send messages to prevent abuse. 2. Anyone should be able to make their own email sending server -- there shouldn't be some sort of oligopoly of those allowed to send email, with all others forbidden. #1 includes techniques like public key crypto, dial-up blacklists, hash-cache, and other micropayment or pseudo-micropayment schemes. #2 includes things like anonymous email. No centralized control the ability for anyone to make their own legitimate mailing list. These constraints seem to be almost constantly in conflict. Which of the two properties is more important? I have problems keeping up with the traffic here, so if there is already a consensus, I apologize for the spam. If control and locked down mail servers is the most important, what proposals are consistant with that but maximize freedom to set up ones own mailinglists or own servers. If egalatarian servers are is the most important, what is the maximum security we can do to lock them down without impacting that? > The SMTP protocol is old, ideal for spammers and inefficient. I rather like SMTP. Its a good protocol and suitable for layering other protocols on top of. Tweaks may be needed, but I think its fairly good. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 07:17:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14245 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ42D-0006hr-Ao for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATCHDew025764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ42C-0006hJ-5r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:12 -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 HAA14208 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ42B-0004OQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ42A-0004OJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ421-0006Zx-AI; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ41H-0006Yz-K5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:15 -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 HAA14191 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ41H-0004KS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:15 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ41G-0004KP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:16:14 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQ41G-0008Lg-7u; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:16:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "Dag Kihlman" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:16:14 +0000 Status: O What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull systems? Have I missed something? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 07:38:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14809 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ4Mf-0007gt-UG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATCcLAs029560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ4Mf-0007gh-Hv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:21 -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 HAA14797 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ4Me-0004h8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ4Me-0004h0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ4MO-0007bT-NJ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:38:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ4LZ-0007KB-Li for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:37:13 -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 HAA14762 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ4LY-0004fn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:37:12 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ4LX-0004fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:37:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 734 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 12:37:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Jimiboy) (212.213.48.177) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2003 12:37:03 -0000 Message-ID: <00d701c3b675$800d25c0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:37:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Little addition: Network based control mechanism for MTAs and domain based control mechanisms can co-exist very happily. Network based control mechanism tries to ensure that the contacting MTA is trusted/registered at that network. Spammer can register own network, this control mechanism will fail (but can be detected using RBL). Domain based control mechanism ensures that the sender sends the messages from the registered MTA for that domain. However, any spammer can register tens of domains for them and send spam using his own MTA which is registered to those domains. Neither of the control mechanisms above can verify that the sender is actually who (s)he claims to be, but when used together the network based control forces the spammers use indirect connections (using the MTAs registered for the network they are using). Domain based control mechanism forces them to use domains they have registered. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Elvey" > To: > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:06 PM > Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals > > > [cut] > > >MTAMark draft tells us the problem (from the spam point of view), > > >and they have done great job, but I think it's a little too complicated > > >to maintain. It may require configuration per domain if virtual > > >domains have their own MX setup (this does not apply to all setups). > > >Also, I don't like parsing TXT records (Parsing == bugs == troubles). > > >Bind and Tinydns seem to differ in TXT records, too. Some Bind versions > > >send extra character (space or ") (parser bug?) whereas Tinydns doesn't. > > >Conclusion: I'm against TXT records. > > > > > > > > A bug in the TXT part of software that has known security holes and MUST > > be replaced anyway isn't a deal breaker, IMO; I'm assuming these bugs > > are only in old versions. > > It's easy to say "must", but lot harder to get all the servers upgraded. > It isn't deal breaker; MTAMark has very good qualities (and I think I had > a little misunderstanding on my side here about it). > > > >RMX records (Do not confuse with Reverse MX records) is domain specific. > > >It's simply a list of IP addresses that can send email from some domain. > > >In reality, some of the users may use just about any sending SMTP > > >server [depending on their ISP]. For example, I have a client that > > >operates in couple of countries, each using different ISP, yet the > > >incoming MTA is always the same, outgoing MTA is never the same. > > >They could be using SMTPAUTH, but instead they use email server > > >of ISP to send out messages. Do you think I could do something > > >about it? Should I administrate a list of outgoing mail servers for my > > >client in this case? No. It's not my job, so I'm against it and I believe > > >most of the administrators are against it. Also, RMX requires new > > >record type, that some bind versions refuse to send out. > > > > > > > > Argument built on a false foundation. Your client isn't using "just > > about any sending SMTP server". A short list of the IPs of the SMTP > > servers of the two (or 20) ISPs your client uses is 0.0% of the SMTP > > servers on the 'net. > > Well, I'll give an example: client operates in more than 20 countries, has > travelling salesmen and agents in many countries. Yet, they all use same > email domain and everyone uses their current ISP to send out messages. > Notice: Travelling salesman maybe connecting even from hotel network. > From my point of view; outgoing MTA can be any server in the world. > How could I know I should temporarily add record for MTA of some > ISP the hotel is using ? > > I agree that domain specific configuration would be better, but it's > simply another layer of control. I think we should have network > level control (legitimate MTAs for some network) AND we should > have domain level control. The whole problem of SMTP is that > it has had no control mechanisms at all. Anyway, at this point I think > the network is nearest (and easiest; IMHO) control mechanism > and at this point my interest is on the network centric approach. > > When IP addresses get restricted, the spammers will have to use > those servers that are "trusted" and it's lot easier to point the spammer > from a known IP list than from approx. 2^32 IP addresses. > Spammers are a moving target, changing their sending MTA all > the time and I'd like to make them a sitting target. Bad behaving > networks can be blocked out using RBL. > > > > Under the "rMX and rDNS co-operate" scheme, this list is of IPs trusted > > (i.e. listed) by people who have often proven untrustworthy. > > This is true, we will have problems if the network administrators are > untrustworthy. However, if 20% of network administrators are untrustworthy > and 80% are trustworthy then I'll be happy to RBL the untrustworthy > networks away. > > > > >Reverse MX > ns&doc=reverse_mx> > > >MTAMark http://www.space.net/~maex/draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00.txt > > >RMX Records http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ > > > > > > > > LMAP: > > > -discussion-00.txt> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 29 08:56:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16171 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ5a8-0001go-5v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATDuKC6006488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ5a7-0001gZ-NS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:19 -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 IAA16150 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ5a6-0005Z4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ5a5-0005Z1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ5Zq-0001cm-2A; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ5ZA-0001cM-Ju for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:20 -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 IAA16141 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ5Z9-0005YY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.inet.fi ([192.89.123.192]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ5Z8-0005YV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:18 -0500 Received: from awot.fi (awgw1.netstar.fi [194.197.204.102]) by smtp.inet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D869EF66 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:55:13 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: From: Jukka Inkeri X-Accept-Language: fi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> <20031129043746.GC27446@iridium.mv.net> In-Reply-To: <20031129043746.GC27446@iridium.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX, release 2 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:55:12 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I have updated our ideas. Now it is more simple "one dns query" -method. No need anymore to take care of networks. It also include posibilities to handle blacklist in own net. It give to operators posibilities to block/control some "not so good" mta. http://www.awot.fi/sf/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx -jukka- -keep it simple- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 09:31:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16728 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ67t-0002ns-0W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATEVCbM010770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ67s-0002nd-T4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:12 -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 JAA16710 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ67r-0005th-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ67q-0005te-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ67i-0002jo-E5; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ67b-0002jJ-Qt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:55 -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 JAA16702 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ67a-0005tV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:54 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ67Z-0005tJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:53 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip176-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.176]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1A6936D1C for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:19 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS Message-ID: <20031129143019.GA11701@m433> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:30:19 -0500 Status: O On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 09:53:49AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote > 1. It's not a reality-free business plan designed to sucker some > dumb VC's and IPO buyers out of their investment capital to line > the pockets of a bunch of hucksters. It's not a business plan at > all. No one is trying to get rich by owning the idea or the tools, > so no one has to be a revenue source for those non-existent owners > to concentrate. I would go one step further. My proposal is basically designed to destroy the business model for the Topicas, Yesmails, and E-Dialogs, and their fellow travellers. The existance of legitimate mailing lists, like this one, gives the email-blasters a bit of plausable deniability and a figleaf of legitimacy. They can claim that millions of people willingly subscribed to their lists, just we subscribed to this one. When legitimate mailing lists no-longer exist (migrated to RSS) then the email-blasters will be exposed for what they are. I do admit that there are a few legitimate businessess who use these mailers because they don't know any better, but they are a small minority. If I am wrong in that analysis, then Topica, Yesmail, E-Dialog, etc, would be able to continue making money by providing RSS feeds to all those millions of eager opt-in subscribers (hack, kaff). -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 10:32:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18763 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ751-0004dY-4N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATFWJ8i017821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ750-0004dM-Tr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:18 -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 KAA18754 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ74y-0006WM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ74y-0006WJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ74k-0004a1-A9; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ74j-0004Zq-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:32:01 -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 KAA18745 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:31:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ74h-0006Sm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:31:59 -0500 Received: from smtp14.fre.skanova.net ([195.67.227.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ74g-0006SH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:31:58 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp14.fre.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hATFVtMS019478; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:31:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003c01c3b68d$ed4a2850$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "Jon Kyme" , "Scott A Crosby" Cc: "ASRG" References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:31:58 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Why Pull instead of SMTP (push) / authentication or freedom to put up own servers The failing of SMTP is that it allows the sender to cheat or lie. Any authentication in SMTP is just authentication in an academic sense. In reality spammers will hack even more than today and send using fully authenticated mail servers. A pull system can be designed in many ways. My proposal is that the mail client communicates with the mail server letting the user see any outgoing mail. This way the user can detect outgoing mails containing viruses or spam and remove them. This will make it harder for viruses to infect through mail. It will also make it less attractive to hack someone to send mail since the mail can be deleted. In a push system it is common to put a limit on incoming mails "full mailbox". In a pull system it will make good sense to put a limit on outgoing mails. This is a good thing since it will make it even harder for viruses and less attractive to hack someone to send mail. In short: By moving the storage from the recipient to the sender we will make it harder to spam, less attractive for a spammer to hack, harder for viruses to infect and harder to lie about your identity. You could also skip all those ridiculous messages sent between servers in SMTP. In a pull system you send a notification containing all information but the body of the mail. In turn you receive an OK (In my proposal the OK contains an encryption key which the senders server uses to encrypt the mail...) If something is wrong you get an "error:xxx" message. Just call and return as any textbook on n-tier design advocates. The opponents will say that it is easy for a spammer to put up pull servers of their own. Yes it is true but they must be reached through a given IP-address, making them vulnerable to blacklisting. Actually it is not a very interesting argument since a push system is even more vulnerable. If no authentication is needed anyone can put up a mail server and spam. If authentication is needed noone could put up a push or pull server. So it is really not a valid argument against pull... Scott raised the issue on what is most important: authentication or the possibility to put up mail servers of their own. I think there is a middle way. Servers containing mails in a pull system should be reached through certain ports. No ISP should allow traffic to those ports if the IP-address is dynamic. Mail servers should use static IP-addresses and this way they can be identified and blacklisted. Actually it would make good sense for an ISP to prohibit all traffic to clients using those ports. The ISP ought to charge a small amount for opening the ports to static IP-addresses. This way something like 99,9% of home users with static IP-addresses will be useless for a hacker forcing the hacker to successfully hack 1000 computers to find one useful. If virus programs or even the operating system warned about these ports being opened it will become even less attractive for spammers to hack. /DK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Kyme" To: "Dag Kihlman" Cc: "ASRG" Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > systems? > > Have I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 10:44:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19007 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7GT-0005RN-HB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATFi96E020907 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7GT-0005R8-C3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:09 -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 KAA18993 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7GR-0006aa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7GQ-0006aX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7GL-0005NV-GB; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7Fi-0005NJ-MU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:26 -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 KAA18988 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7Fg-0006aU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:20 -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 1AQ7Fa-0006aF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:43:14 -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 1AQ7LD-0004Uk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:49:03 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:30:06 +0100." <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:49:03 -0500 Status: O Markus Stumpf wrote: > Now there is another company, let's call it example.ORG. They do not > have LMAP records in place, so any MTA will accept messages with > addresses @example.ORG from any IP. It will accept the messages also > from 10.0.1.0/32, even if I use LMAP. So if a workstation in my > net is compromised it can be abused as a spam relay. Same holds for > viri. Absolutely. That isn't a problem that LMAP is trying to solve. The spammers can forge association with example.ORG, because the admins of that domain have agreed to permit such forgery. You're responsible for the use of your own network, but you're not responsible for abuse of another domain name. The MTAMark proposal addresses the problem of "owned" machines originating SMTP traffic. But I don't recall if it includes information about which domain that MTA can claim association with. That would be hard, as some IP's host hundreds of thousands of domains. The two proposals are related, but solve different problems. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 10:52:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19089 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7O9-0005bA-2s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATFq5hb021514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7O8-0005av-US for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:04 -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 KAA19083 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:51:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7O6-0006fu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7O6-0006fr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7O5-0005Yl-BY; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7N7-0005YJ-8x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:51:01 -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 KAA19079 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7N4-0006fo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:50:58 -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 1AQ7Mz-0006fe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:50:53 -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 1AQ7Sh-0004V1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:56:47 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:11:22 +0200." <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:56:47 -0500 Status: O "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote:> Well, I'll give an example: client operates in more than 20 countries, has > travelling salesmen and agents in many countries. Yet, they all use same > email domain and everyone uses their current ISP to send out messages. ... > >From my point of view; outgoing MTA can be any server in the world. > How could I know I should temporarily add record for MTA of some > ISP the hotel is using ? Please read the LMAP discussion paper. It addresses this issue. I'll turn your question on it's head: why is it the problem of the recipient to do the work to tell your travelling salesmen from spammers who are abusing your name? My answer is that it's not. I'll just toss all of the forged messages into the garbage, and your travelling salesmen will never get my business. That's fine by me, as I'd rather work with people who don't abuse the network. As Hadmut said in his rants in the RMX paper: People have to realize that if they want to stop forgery (for spam), they must stop their own forgery. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 10:54:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19332 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7QQ-0005rA-NN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATFsQVq022506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7QQ-0005qv-Id for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:26 -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 KAA19207 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7QM-0006iF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7QM-0006gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7Q1-0005iT-9P; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7PD-0005i6-D8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:53:11 -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 KAA19114 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7PA-0006gc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:53:08 -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 1AQ7P5-0006gN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:53:03 -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 1AQ7Un-0004VI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:58:57 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:16:14 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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:58:57 -0500 Status: O "Jon Kyme" wrote: > What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > systems? I'm working on a document which addresses SMTP's failures. > Have I missed something? Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll stop spam is another question. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 11:10:06 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19788 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7fM-0006yV-FL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATG9q85026805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7fM-0006yG-Ap for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:52 -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 LAA19765 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7fJ-0006wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:49 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7fJ-0006wZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQ7WD-0005ot-1c for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:00:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7Vq-0006Nf-Rg; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:00:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7VE-0006Mw-TL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:59:24 -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 KAA19617 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7VC-0006qp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:59:22 -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 1AQ7VB-0006qm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:59:22 -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 1AQ7as-0004Vv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:05:14 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:31:58 +0100." <003c01c3b68d$ed4a2850$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:05:14 -0500 Status: O "Dag Kihlman" wrote: > The failing of SMTP is that it allows the sender to cheat or lie. Any > authentication in SMTP is just authentication in an academic sense. In > reality spammers will hack even more than today and send using fully > authenticated mail servers. Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. The benefits of a pull system are different. It allows recipients to do things like wait 12 hours to pick up mail from unknown senders, at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP, and thus can't send the spam. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 11:17:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20005 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7mL-0007Ey-RR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:17:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATGH5xG027826 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:17:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7mL-0007Ej-MN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:17:05 -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 LAA19920 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7mK-00071R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:17:04 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7fO-0006wZ-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:09:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQ7SE-0005dg-Fb for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:56:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7Rz-00065E-S1; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:56:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQ7RX-00062r-R8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:55:35 -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 KAA19580 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:55:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7RT-0006po-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:55:31 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQ7RT-0006pj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:55:31 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQ7RT-0005pU-4B; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:55:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ASRG] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "Scott A Crosby" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:55:31 +0000 Status: O > > What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > > systems? > > > Pull might help stop spam. Right now, a sender system only has to > exist to inject a single message for it to get through. With a pull > mechanism, the sender must remain at a stable IP address for at least > a few hours to a few days. Sending systems can't be as ephemeral anymore. > > Is this a weakness? And anyway, can't this "flaw" be resolved by any of the RMX / permitted sender DNS type proposals? It seems a very weak argument to me. > > > > > Have I missed something? > > > > See the grandparent message by me. > > No - I saw that. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 14:14:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23797 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAY8-0005ek-MT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATJEar7021741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAY8-0005ea-Ge for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:36 -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 OAA23754 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAY6-0001Nd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAY5-0001Na-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAXY-0005cO-JR; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAWi-0005bl-V5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:13:08 -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 OAA23738 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAWg-0001N7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:13:06 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAWf-0001N3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:13:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 3224 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 19:12:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Jimiboy) (212.213.48.177) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2003 19:12:58 -0000 Message-ID: <016d01c3b6ac$cf5944b0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:13:02 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals > "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote:> Well, I'll give an example: client operates in more than 20 countries, has > > travelling salesmen and agents in many countries. Yet, they all use same > > email domain and everyone uses their current ISP to send out messages. > ... > > >From my point of view; outgoing MTA can be any server in the world. > > How could I know I should temporarily add record for MTA of some > > ISP the hotel is using ? > > Please read the LMAP discussion paper. It addresses this issue. Nice. I'll quote: LMAP discussion paper, page 1. 'The LMAP protocol falls with the scope of "changes to existing applications"' In ideal world, we would throw away SMTP [and bunch of other protocols, too]. In real world changing all MUAs, MTAs, firewalls, proxies - all software and hardware built around this crappy protocol - is way too big overhead that it could happen now. We have the spam problem now. Anyhow, this shows interesting problem for someone to think about. How to make Internet capable of changing or upgrading protocols every now and then? > I'll turn your question on it's head: why is it the problem of the > recipient to do the work to tell your travelling salesmen from > spammers who are abusing your name? > > My answer is that it's not. I'll just toss all of the forged > messages into the garbage, and your travelling salesmen will never get > my business. That's fine by me, as I'd rather work with people who > don't abuse the network. > > As Hadmut said in his rants in the RMX paper: People have to realize > that if they want to stop forgery (for spam), they must stop their own > forgery. Good point. I agree that forgery is a big problem - but what can we do about it as long as we have current infrastructure? Anyway, LMAP seems to suggest major changes to MTA which will lead to major resistance in adopting organizations. It'll happen, but it's just a question of when. Quick acceptance of HTTP shows that big moves can happen quickly, but there has to be benefit with it, too. [Yeah, getting rid of the spam could be it, but isn't - new system should have something "new" you can't possibly get using "old" stuff] We [people] are very good to adopt new things, it's just that we're very lousy to give up the old things. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 14:25:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24157 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAiK-00067b-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATJP8j5023525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAiK-00067M-1r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:08 -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 OAA24149 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAiH-0001ap-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAiH-0001am-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAiF-00064r-7M; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:25:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAhR-000641-J7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:13 -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 OAA24121 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:23:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAhP-0001a6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:11 -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 1AQAhO-0001a2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:10 -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 1AQAn8-0004YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:30:06 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:13:02 +0200." <016d01c3b6ac$cf5944b0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:30:06 -0500 Status: O "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote: > Good point. I agree that forgery is a big problem - but what can > we do about it as long as we have current infrastructure? Quite a bit. > Anyway, LMAP seems to suggest major changes to MTA Huh? Why? It involves no changes to the sending MTA, and only minor changes to the receiving MTA. > which will lead to major resistance in adopting organizations. There's already major resistance to the idea of doing *anything* to change the way SMTP is implemented or deployed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 14:42:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24563 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAyj-0007GS-Sb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATJg5jG027918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAyj-0007GD-Nj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:05 -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 OAA24557 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAyh-0001mV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAyg-0001mS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:42:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQAyf-0007E3-Bz; Sat, 29 Nov 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 1AQAxo-0007Ao-Hr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:41:08 -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 OAA24537 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAxk-0001lr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:41:04 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQAxj-0001lo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:41:04 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: JJbiVX+uNLofEX6p+k0xJg 1070134862 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C359450EA3; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:41:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:41:00 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/28/2003 12:39 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > Hector Santos wrote: > >> YAHOO.COM, AOL.OCM and others accepts "billions" of mail therefore >> might >> deem it necessary to delay any mail validation process. Again, it >> does not >> mean it doesn't work. It means, these guys are the PROBLEM, but >> anyone in >> the mail server business knows that. You are comparing it against the >> AOL.COM, YAHOO.COM, etc. Yet, in the same breath, I read how these >> guys >> are trying to define or hijack your efforts. > > > There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from > harvesting email addresses. It's a poor excuse. There are ISPs that detect harvesting attacks and when they do, deal with it - some then refuse even email to valid addresses. They can refuse the email without stating or otherwise giving away the information that the reason for refusal is email to a nonexistent account. IMO, MAIL FROM: <> needs to be deprecated in favor of refusal during SMTP. There is no compelling reason to delay the mail validation process. It provides no benefit that cannot be met with immediate validation, barring the super-secure bastion host scenario Bill Cole mentions, which could be resolved with some work. (I should admit - I don't do what I preach, as the provider I choose to have host my domain does accept spam that I'd prefer it refuse during SMTP, but I have pushed them to fix the problem, and they do refuse a good fraction of the spam during SMTP.) I forget whether SpamAssassin supports what we're currently calling CallerID Verification. It has NO_DNS_FOR_FROM: Domain in From header has no MX or A DNS records, but I think it doesn't have the full CallerID Verification. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 15:03:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24905 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQBJB-0007nQ-Px for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATK3Dus029962 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQBJB-0007nB-M3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:13 -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 PAA24865 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQBJ8-00020L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQBJ8-00020I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQBIz-0007jX-3H; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQBIE-0007iJ-ST for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:14 -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 PAA24832 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQBI7-0001zL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:07 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQBI6-0001zI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:06 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D21CB044C for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "ASRG" From: Bill Cole Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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, 29 Nov 2003 15:02:03 -0500 Status: O At 12:16 PM +0000 11/29/03, Jon Kyme wrote: >What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull >systems? > >Have I missed something? SMTP for RFC822-format mail is essentially the only 'push' system in wide use on the net where data is sent to individual end users without requiring their prior consent. Yet for historical reasons, it operates on a source-trusted model. Traditionally, none of the source identification data in RFC822 mail or used in SMTP are authenticated in any way, but rather they are accepted no matter what they are. In the case of the HELO argument it is even unwise to do basic sanity checks because misuse is so widespread among legitimate senders: unless the sending side claims an unambiguous identity which the receiving system knows as its own, refusing mail based on a validation failure will result in some legitimate mail being rejected. Being a push system makes email more subject to spamming than 'pull' systems, and the historical ways that Internet email has been run without any sort of sender validation have led to even non-spam using mechanisms that break any serious attempt at sender authentication. Pull systems have a reduced need for sender authentication because the recipient is asking the sender directly for the content. This is why systems like the web almost never authenticate content providers, only doing do when the data being received has some significant intrinsic value. Note that I do NOT consider the one model proposed here for a new variation on SMTP to be accurately called a 'pull' system because it involves pushed unsolicited notices of availability of pullable messages, and in the end that's just as many pointers to spam as we currently have spam. A true 'pull' system for bulk messaging could do for spam what the web did for gopher. If the only reason a bulk sender would chose SMTP is to support unsolicited messaging, the problem of filtering essentially all spam without filtering out non-spam becomes a whole lot easier. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 17:36:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29141 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQDhP-0005WW-Ln for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATMaNnc021228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQDhP-0005WJ-IN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:23 -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 RAA29138 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQDhN-0003lr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQDhM-0003lo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQDh3-0005Qh-94; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQDge-0005Oi-R9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:35:36 -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 RAA29127 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQDgc-0003lL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:35:34 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQDgb-0003lH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:35:33 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: c9y9yE0po9txpQxRirLzsw 1070145332 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211CF45162E; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:35:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC91F32.6010102@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling; do-not-spam list; banners References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:35:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/28/2003 5:50 PM, John R Levine sent forth electrons to convey: >I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam labelling >standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that >don't accept spam. > > Seconded. We must respond without providing any legitimacy whatsoever to the bill. A simple reponse like ESR's doesn't do that, so I oppose it. I'd like to see an abstract hitting the strongest points, followed by a detailed, damning explanation why it's unacceptable. 1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It won't be enforced or effective. 2. Spam is theft. All spam. 3. Spam doesn't scale. 4. It doesn't prohibit software whose purpose is creating or sending email with FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION. 5. A standard that self-identifies "/commercial electronic //mail//" is highly counterproductive; the IETF MUST NOT create such a standard, one that self-identifies UCE could be useful. I personally don't see any email sent to me with text required by various state antispam laws in the Subject./ 6. What's needed is a law like that which is known to work: the one against junk faxes. 7. It's about consent, not content. ... Apropos the do-not-spam list, we shouldn't support it either, for cause (namely no effective enforcement mechanism in law), but should state how it should work if it's going to be attempted over our objection: End users must be able to submit standard one way hashes of email addresses and domains that do not wish to be spammed via the web or email, at their option. Thus the list of hashes becomes much less of a target than a list of email addresses and domains. The company put in charge of the list (AT&T is in charge of the do-not-call list, and has abused its position) MUST NOT have access to the email addresses and domains themselves. The list MUST NOT be an attractive prize for spammers, particularly those who keep out of reach of US laws. On 11/29/2003 1:58 AM, Jon Kyme sent forth electrons to convey: >I have users who wish to receive commercial email that >they haven't explicitly solicited. Does this mean I should have UCE PLEASE >in my banners? >I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by [Levine]. > > I suggest you not respect unethical wishes. They wish to aid and abet criminal activity by patronizing these thieves; why else would they want it? Spam is theft of service, don't you know? If you want to put UCE PLEASE in your banners, do so, but don't expect anything but distain for doing it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:17:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00921 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEKv-0007DS-0I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNHClh027732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEKu-0007DD-QM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:12 -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 SAA00904 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEKs-0004A5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEKr-0004A2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEKj-00079V-5W; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEJm-00078v-Ga for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:16:03 -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 SAA00790 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEJj-00046s-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:15:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEJi-00046p-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:15:59 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hATNDSO2017669; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:13:28 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113232@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Scott A Crosby'" , Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Chris , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 15:13:26 -0800 Status: O Whether or not pull eliminates spam is besides the point. Pull eliminates false positives which are a serious problem for email broadcasters. It does not matter how good some spam filter might be in theory, if you are on the sending side you have to deal with the rubbish people use, or more accurately their ISP uses. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:scrosby@cs.rice.edu] > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:34 AM > To: Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: Chris; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:13 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich > writes: > > > Chris wrote: > > >>>this is a research group. we should research and then make > > >>>recommendations > > >> > > >>This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. > > >>The scope is > > >>control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. > > >> > > >>BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain > exactly what is > > >>wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is > not possible. > > > Please re read my original post > > > > > I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words > > > pull *IS* smtp > > > with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny > > > both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED > > > > > > > > > The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be > > answered before going into minute details of implementation. > > > Pull might help stop spam. Right now, a sender system only has to > exist to inject a single message for it to get through. With a pull > mechanism, the sender must remain at a stable IP address for at least > a few hours to a few days. Sending systems can't be ephemeral anymore. > > By a pull system what I mean is a system where a sender pushes an > announcement that a message is ready. A recipient then 'pulls' the > message from the sender at a later time just as they are. The push > message contains a nonce for retrieval and a cryptographic digest of > the message. > > With a pull system, you can 'retroactively' block access to messages > sent from malicious serveres, by exploiting the hours or days between > being sent and being read. This is because the messages have yet to be > distributed to a million mailboxes. > > Whether or not this is worth a protocol change I won't say, but it is > another mechanism. I hate to say it, but from reading ASRG, people > seem unwilling to make hard choices. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:27:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01251 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEUZ-0007h0-Ck for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNRBPg029564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEUZ-0007gl-7F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:11 -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 SAA01186 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEUW-0004G9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEUV-0004G6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEUP-0007d7-IS; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEU6-0007cf-2Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:42 -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 SAA01130 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEU3-0004Et-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:39 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEU2-0004Ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:38 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hATNQaGU030753; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:36 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hATNQahC010560; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:36 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNQa7N010558; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:36 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Matthew Elvey Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling; do-not-spam list; banners Message-ID: <20031129232636.GB21422@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113224@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <3FC91F32.6010102@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC91F32.6010102@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 18:26:36 -0500 Status: O Matthew Elvey : > On 11/28/2003 5:50 PM, John R Levine sent forth electrons to convey: > > >I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam labelling > >standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that > >don't accept spam. John, you're being politically naive to a startling degree. You're ignoring the reality that if CAN-SPAM passes, there *will* be a spam-labeling standard. The question is only whether it will be a well- designed one or a badly-designed one. If we "don't recommend", we'll get one designed by a bureaucrat -- or, worse, a telemarketing lobbyist. Let's not allow the ideal to be the enemy of the good, here. "NO UCE" and MTA-labeling plus mandatory spam labeling will be better than either alone. There's no reason IETF shouldn't push both approaches, plus LMAP, and every reason for it to pursue all three. We are being given an open opportunity to design a labeling system that works well. What bill have you ever heard of that actually *solicits IETF input*? We must *not* *blow* *this*. If we take the technical prima-donna approach that we won't support or assist the labeling requirement because it is not a hypothetical perfect solution, we will throw away influence we might have had on future antispam measures. Passing up this opportunity would be stupid, stupid, *stupid*. That truth is independent of the technical merits of my specific proposal, or of any functionally similar one. Matthew: > 1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It > won't be enforced or effective. California ain't the Feds. > 2. Spam is theft. All spam. True. So what? > 3. Spam doesn't scale. I'm not sure what you mean by this. > 4. It doesn't prohibit software whose purpose is creating or sending > email with FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION. Now *you're* being horribly naive. Haven't you learned anything from the history of the DMCA, or for that matter the continued and horrifying abuses of drug- firearms-, and porn-possession laws? Laws that criminalize the possession of things, rather that specific *behaviors*, are open invitations to abuse. It would be incredibly dangerous to make spamming software illegal -- because you can't control what an ignorant cop or power-seeking bureaucrat will define as "spamming software". Want to go to jail for having a copy of Mailman or majordomo? That's the future you're asking for. > 5. A standard that self-identifies "/commercial electronic //mail//" > is highly counterproductive; the IETF MUST NOT create such a > standard, one that self-identifies UCE could be useful. I > personally don't see any email sent to me with text required by > various state antispam laws in the Subject./ This doesn't appear to make any sense. > >I have users who wish to receive commercial email that > >they haven't explicitly solicited. Does this mean I should have UCE PLEASE > >in my banners? > >I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by [Levine]. > > > I suggest you not respect unethical wishes. They wish to aid and abet > criminal activity by patronizing these thieves; why else would they want it? Because they have different desires than you. It's not your business to impose your criteria on *their* communication stream. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:32:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01533 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEZW-00086l-QE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNWIn2031161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEZW-00086W-Lr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:18 -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 SAA01505 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEZT-0004Qo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEZT-0004Qk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEZG-0007zE-0Y; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEYV-0007vY-Gt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:31:15 -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 SAA01464 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEYS-0004N5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:31:12 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEYR-0004Mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:31:11 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: 7KXmF8Zv6opoiQjr6arzVA 1070148669 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA87E450A66; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:31:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FC92C3B.6000907@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX, MTAmark References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:31:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/28/2003 6:30 PM, Markus Stumpf sent forth electrons to convey: > If a workstation in my > >net is compromised it can be abused as a spam relay. Same holds for >viri. >There is no chance to tell other mailservers: don't accept eMails from >10.0.1.1. MTAmark fills that gap and gives (optionally) a contact address. >We don't see MTAmark as a concurring proposal to LMAP. Those two fit >together and complement themselves. > I see this or rDNS and rMX as complementary to LMTP, but I think it's a less useful scheme than LMTP. Also, http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/DUL-FAQ.html is essentially a centralized version of MTAmark, and it's an existing system that doesn't need any new software or evangelism effort to be supported. In terms of priorities, I don't see 'em at the top of the list, when adopting them would, like LMTP, require a large evangelism effort, but for a relatively small gain. Also, they don't provide the selfish motivation to implement that LMTP benefits from. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01957 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEul-0000fM-JG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNsFMc002554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEul-0000f7-ES for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:15 -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 SAA01939 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEui-0004f3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEuh-0004f0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEuW-0000cx-Kv; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEti-0000cj-3v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:53:10 -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 SAA01924 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEte-0004eR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:53:07 -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 1AQEte-0004eA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:53:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5002ML0ZIG9@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:52:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Scott A Crosby Cc: Dag Kihlman , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC9313F.3090606@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 18:52:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Scott A Crosby wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:44:33 +0100, "Dag Kihlman" writes: > > >>I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices. > > > That wasn't the comment I was making. More so that it seems that > there's two threads: > > 1. Email servers should be authenticated and authorized to send > messages to prevent abuse. > > 2. Anyone should be able to make their own email sending server -- > there shouldn't be some sort of oligopoly of those allowed to send > email, with all others forbidden. > > #1 includes techniques like public key crypto, dial-up blacklists, > hash-cache, and other micropayment or pseudo-micropayment schemes. > > #2 includes things like anonymous email. No centralized control the > ability for anyone to make their own legitimate mailing list. > > These constraints seem to be almost constantly in conflict. Which of > the two properties is more important? I have problems keeping up with > the traffic here, so if there is already a consensus, I apologize for > the spam. > Phil Baker mentioned previously that authetication domains, instead of individual email addresses can help things. Especially, when the authentication is done via DNS, without any external parties involved. In that case, there is a less of a conflict. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:57:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02038 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQExU-0000sJ-Cs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNv4lD003357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQExU-0000s4-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:04 -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 SAA02020 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQExR-0004hu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQExQ-0004hr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQExR-0000mJ-Sj; Sat, 29 Nov 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 1AQEwk-0000lp-EF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:18 -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 SAA02002 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEwh-0004hF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:15 -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 1AQEwg-0004gi-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5002VB14PH4@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:55:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113232@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Scott A Crosby'" , Chris , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC931F6.1070705@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113232@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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:55:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O It also provides full control to the receiver on whether to "pull" the data or not, and shifts the burden of storing the data to the spammers. Yakov Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Whether or not pull eliminates spam is besides the point. > > Pull eliminates false positives which are a serious problem for email > broadcasters. It does not matter how good some spam filter might be in > theory, if you are on the sending side you have to deal with the rubbish > people use, or more accurately their ISP uses. > > > Phill > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:scrosby@cs.rice.edu] >>Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:34 AM >>To: Yakov Shafranovich >>Cc: Chris; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) >> >> >>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:13 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich >> writes: >> >> >>>Chris wrote: >>> >>>>>>this is a research group. we should research and then make >>>>>>recommendations >>>>> >>>>>This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup. >>>>>The scope is >>>>>control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible. >>>>> >>>>>BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain >> >>exactly what is >> >>>>>wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is >> >>not possible. >> >>>>Please re read my original post >>> >>>>I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words >>>>pull *IS* smtp >>>>with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny >>>>both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED >>>> >>> >>> >>>The question is how is going to help stem spam. That needs to be >>>answered before going into minute details of implementation. >> >> >>Pull might help stop spam. Right now, a sender system only has to >>exist to inject a single message for it to get through. With a pull >>mechanism, the sender must remain at a stable IP address for at least >>a few hours to a few days. Sending systems can't be ephemeral anymore. >> >>By a pull system what I mean is a system where a sender pushes an >>announcement that a message is ready. A recipient then 'pulls' the >>message from the sender at a later time just as they are. The push >>message contains a nonce for retrieval and a cryptographic digest of >>the message. >> >>With a pull system, you can 'retroactively' block access to messages >>sent from malicious serveres, by exploiting the hours or days between >>being sent and being read. This is because the messages have yet to be >>distributed to a million mailboxes. >> >>Whether or not this is worth a protocol change I won't say, but it is >>another mechanism. I hate to say it, but from reading ASRG, people >>seem unwilling to make hard choices. >> >>Scott >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 18:59:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02124 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEzO-00013P-Rc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:59:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hATNx2al004045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEzO-00013A-Mf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:59:02 -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 SAA02114 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEzL-0004kI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEzL-0004kF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEzM-0000xH-RQ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:59:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQEyS-0000uk-L9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:04 -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 SAA02080 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQEyP-0004jF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:01 -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 1AQEyP-0004iO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:01 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5001TS17P85@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:57:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX, MTAmark In-reply-to: <3FC92C3B.6000907@elvey.com> To: Matthew Elvey Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC93265.9040707@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> <3FC92C3B.6000907@elvey.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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Matthew Elvey wrote: > Also, http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/DUL-FAQ.html is essentially a > centralized version of MTAmark, and it's an existing system that doesn't > need any new software or evangelism effort to be supported. A centralized system can be subject to a DDOS attack like we have seen. Also, centralized systems confer power on those who run them, and that power can be abused. It is easier to let the rDNS owners do this. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 19:10:10 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02715 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQF9r-0001kG-MM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU09pN3006702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQF9r-0001k1-BZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:51 -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 TAA02688 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQF9n-000517-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQF9m-000505-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQF93-0001cW-3r; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQF8F-0001cH-Pw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:08:14 -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 TAA02555 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQF8C-0004xV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:08:08 -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 1AQF8B-0004vy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:08:07 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP50020Z1OKFD@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 19:07:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>There are problems with the the regular C/R approaches that apply here >>as well: > > >>1. Nothing stops a spammer from using someone else's email address with >>that domain answering yes (unless you start matching the his email >>address with his IP which is what the LMAP proposals do). Especially >>this would be true if he uses YOUR domain. > > Our mail system does (optionally) check the return path domain against the > connection IP. But more importantly, this puts the spammer into another > category, namely, outright fraud. > There is nothing in the IETF standards that requires the return path domain to be the same as the IP. As a matter of fact, many systems use outside MTAs to deliver their email, so such check can have many false positives. The only way to check for this is to utilize some kind of LMAP or similar proposal, such as digital keys (MSFT's). Additionally, spammers are *fraudsters* and this is the most common occurance - using someone else's domain as return address and someone else 0wned machine for sending the spam! > > >>JamSpam seems to be currently dead. The folks involved could not agree >>on anything so it fell apart. > > > Maybe so, but I am not too sure if they did not accomplish the goal of > allowing a legitimizing a classification of spam to be unrestricted at the > system level. This "David" guy did attend the congressional hearings. Was > IETG represented? > Nope, the IETF or IETF was not present. >>IF you are rejecting email at the MAIL FROM stage, there is now way to >>check for false positives since you do not have the actual email >>message. > > > Doesn't apply. Again, I am from the SCHOOL that SMTP has no business in > analyzing mail content. That is what is going to get you in trouble and > FEED the legal eagles. > > The goal is CONFORMITY of the client/server session. If a MAIL FROM: > FAILS, the client has no business going any futher. If the MAIL FROM: > succeeds, then WCSAP has done its part and it up to the next stages, if any, > to do checking. > You still have not answered the question - how do you know there are no false positives? What method did you use to figure that out? And also, what is your definition of a "false positive"? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 19:15:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02820 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFFI-00020j-2g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU0FSKX007723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFFH-00020U-Uo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:27 -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 TAA02801 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFFG-00053u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFFG-00053n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFEt-0001tH-3y; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFEV-0001sl-Gq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:14:39 -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 TAA02797 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFET-00053j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:14:37 -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 1AQFET-00053R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:14:37 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5001PU1V085@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:11:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals In-reply-to: <016d01c3b6ac$cf5944b0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC935AD.9070302@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <016d01c3b6ac$cf5944b0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 19:11:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan DeKok" > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] > proposals > > > >>"Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote:> Well, I'll give an > > example: client operates in more than 20 countries, has > >>>travelling salesmen and agents in many countries. Yet, they all use same >>>email domain and everyone uses their current ISP to send out messages. >> >>... >> >>>>From my point of view; outgoing MTA can be any server in the world. >>>How could I know I should temporarily add record for MTA of some >>>ISP the hotel is using ? >> >> Please read the LMAP discussion paper. It addresses this issue. > > > Nice. I'll quote: LMAP discussion paper, page 1. > > 'The LMAP protocol falls with the scope of "changes to existing > applications"' > > In ideal world, we would throw away SMTP [and bunch of other protocols, > too]. > In real world changing all MUAs, MTAs, firewalls, proxies - all software and > hardware built around this crappy protocol - is way too big overhead that it > could happen now. We have the spam problem now. > Take a look at (http://www.iab.org/documents/drafts/draft-iab-e2e-futures-04.txt). ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 19:19:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02949 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFIt-0002it-53 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU0JBNw010461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFIt-0002ie-0p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:11 -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 TAA02929 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFIq-0005AN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFIq-0005AK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFIj-0002bJ-0p; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFI1-0002aQ-1Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:17 -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 TAA02896 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFHz-00059R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:15 -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 1AQFHy-00058V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:15 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP50029A25HDE@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)] To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC93726.6070103@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 19:17:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:35:59 -0500 From: joe To: Pull systems are not convenient as they delay access to mail by a recipient. Many users are mobile, they access their email server, download all messages and then sift through them off-line. Authenticating senders is a good step forward as it limits the freedom spammers enjoy today. So its certainly a way to go. Its by no means a solution to the problem. Joe -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill Cole Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:02 PM To: ASRG Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) At 12:16 PM +0000 11/29/03, Jon Kyme wrote: >What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull >systems? > >Have I missed something? SMTP for RFC822-format mail is essentially the only 'push' system in wide use on the net where data is sent to individual end users without requiring their prior consent. Yet for historical reasons, it operates on a source-trusted model. Traditionally, none of the source identification data in RFC822 mail or used in SMTP are authenticated in any way, but rather they are accepted no matter what they are. In the case of the HELO argument it is even unwise to do basic sanity checks because misuse is so widespread among legitimate senders: unless the sending side claims an unambiguous identity which the receiving system knows as its own, refusing mail based on a validation failure will result in some legitimate mail being rejected. Being a push system makes email more subject to spamming than 'pull' systems, and the historical ways that Internet email has been run without any sort of sender validation have led to even non-spam using mechanisms that break any serious attempt at sender authentication. Pull systems have a reduced need for sender authentication because the recipient is asking the sender directly for the content. This is why systems like the web almost never authenticate content providers, only doing do when the data being received has some significant intrinsic value. Note that I do NOT consider the one model proposed here for a new variation on SMTP to be accurately called a 'pull' system because it involves pushed unsolicited notices of availability of pullable messages, and in the end that's just as many pointers to spam as we currently have spam. A true 'pull' system for bulk messaging could do for spam what the web did for gopher. If the only reason a bulk sender would chose SMTP is to support unsolicited messaging, the problem of filtering essentially all spam without filtering out non-spam becomes a whole lot easier. ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 19:23:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03082 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFMe-0002qX-10 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU0N3ne010935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFMd-0002qI-RL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:03 -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 TAA03066 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFMc-0005DK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFMb-0005DH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFMa-0002o7-Q5; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFMI-0002nq-R9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:42 -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 TAA03061 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFMH-0005DC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:41 -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 1AQFMG-0005Cs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:22:40 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-392-646.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.247.208]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5002OL2C4GT@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC93814.80805@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:21:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Chris wrote: >>>Have I missed something? >> >> Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think >>they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll >>stop spam is another question. > > > Please define spam > > From the technical considerations document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt): "For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is sufficient." We do not have an official definition, but this one is sufficient for most discussions. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 19:50:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03578 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmw-0003wL-HW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU0oEaO015133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmw-0003vz-CR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -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 TAA03541 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmu-0005Ux-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmu-0005Ut-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFml-0003rO-8H; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmT-0003qD-Ox for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:45 -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 TAA03533 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmR-0005US-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:43 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmR-0005UO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:43 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-182.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.182]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 87FDD648E9; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:19:40 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)] Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC93726.6070103@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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:23:26 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > Pull systems are not convenient as they delay access to mail by a > recipient. Many users are mobile, they access > their email server, download all messages and then sift through them > off-line. My version of pull is not done by the recipient but by his mail server (ISP) it will work as well for mobile as it will for fixed. the only delay may be a few seconds during the athentication/approval stage so if you are waitng for an email to arrive it may take a minute longer (or less) > > Authenticating senders is a good step forward as it limits the freedom > spammers enjoy today. So its certainly a way to go. Its by no means a > solution to the problem. I doubt we will find "a solution" not a single one any way my theory is to identify the sender (pull or whatever) then we have to find a way to allow the recipient to succeed in the claim the mail was not of an acceptable nature thats why I have also started promoting a "class" header with legislation it will provide the legal framework to prosecute people for sending unsolicited mail without causing a concern for legitimate mail "broadcasters" Regards Chris Rebel@rebel.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:48 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)] > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:35:59 -0500 > From: joe > To: > > Joe > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill > Cole > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:02 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > At 12:16 PM +0000 11/29/03, Jon Kyme wrote: > >What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > > >systems? > > > >Have I missed something? > > SMTP for RFC822-format mail is essentially the only 'push' system in > wide use on the net where data is sent to individual end users > without requiring their prior consent. Yet for historical reasons, it > operates on a source-trusted model. Traditionally, none of the source > identification data in RFC822 mail or used in SMTP are authenticated > in any way, but rather they are accepted no matter what they are. In > the case of the HELO argument it is even unwise to do basic sanity > checks because misuse is so widespread among legitimate senders: > unless the sending side claims an unambiguous identity which the > receiving system knows as its own, refusing mail based on a > validation failure will result in some legitimate mail being > rejected. Being a push system makes email more subject to spamming > than 'pull' systems, and the historical ways that Internet email has > been run without any sort of sender validation have led to even > non-spam using mechanisms that break any serious attempt at sender > authentication. > > Pull systems have a reduced need for sender authentication because > the recipient is asking the sender directly for the content. This is > why systems like the web almost never authenticate content providers, > only doing do when the data being received has some significant > intrinsic value. Note that I do NOT consider the one model proposed > here for a new variation on SMTP to be accurately called a 'pull' > system because it involves pushed unsolicited notices of availability > of pullable messages, and in the end that's just as many pointers to > spam as we currently have spam. A true 'pull' system for bulk > messaging could do for spam what the web did for gopher. If the only > reason a bulk sender would chose SMTP is to support unsolicited > messaging, the problem of filtering essentially all spam without > filtering out non-spam becomes a whole lot easier. > > > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called > users?" (Clifford Stoll) > ------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 29 19:50:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03579 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmw-0003wX-K4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU0oEOo015147 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmw-0003w0-DO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:14 -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 TAA03542 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmu-0005V0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmu-0005Uu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFml-0003rW-ML; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQFmU-0003qI-7j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:46 -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 TAA03536 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmS-0005UX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:44 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQFmR-0005UP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:43 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-182.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.182]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 14364648FF; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:19:42 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Chris" Cc: "Alan DeKok" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC93814.80805@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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:23:28 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > "For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is > sufficient." > Sorry Yakov I must disagree taken from... http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt Called spam, its definition varies from "unsolicited commercial email" to "any email the recipient does not want". My point is, and I keep having to repeat this. "One man spams is another mans fodder" If any in this group thinks they can define spam then I am afraid they are mistaken other than to say it is indefinable which is *exactly* what the document states We cannot and should not be looking for ways to force any persons (or groups) definition of spam onto any one else We should be looking for ways to empower the recipient to decide for themselves (or parents) what to receive and what not to receive. It is not the job of the transport system to do this. and NEVER should be. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com > [mailto:yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com]On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:52 AM > To: Chris > Cc: Alan DeKok; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > Chris wrote: > > >>>Have I missed something? > >> > >> Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think > >>they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll > >>stop spam is another question. > > > > > > Please define spam > > > > > > From the technical considerations document > ): > > We do not have an official definition, but this one is sufficient for > most discussions. > > Yakov > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my > tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) > ------- > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 20:33:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04783 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGSg-0006F7-JB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU1XMAH023991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGSg-0006Es-CW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:22 -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 UAA04764 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGSe-00065p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGSd-00065m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGSL-0006B8-3y; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGRy-0006Al-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:38 -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 UAA04746 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGRw-00065a-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:36 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGRv-00065X-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:36 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95767B047B for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) 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, 29 Nov 2003 20:32:30 -0500 Status: O At 11:41 AM -0800 11/29/03, Matthew Elvey wrote: >On 11/28/2003 12:39 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > >>Hector Santos wrote: >> >>>YAHOO.COM, AOL.OCM and others accepts "billions" of mail therefore might >>>deem it necessary to delay any mail validation process. Again, it does not >>>mean it doesn't work. It means, these guys are the PROBLEM, but anyone in >>>the mail server business knows that. You are comparing it against the >>>AOL.COM, YAHOO.COM, etc. Yet, in the same breath, I read how these guys >>>are trying to define or hijack your efforts. >> >> >>There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from >>harvesting email addresses. > >It's a poor excuse. There are ISPs that detect harvesting attacks >and when they do, deal with it - some then refuse even email to >valid addresses. They can refuse the email without stating or >otherwise giving away the information that the reason for refusal is >email to a nonexistent account. IMO, MAIL FROM: <> needs to be >deprecated in favor of refusal during SMTP. The null sender for system-generated messages about system-level issues should NOT be deprecated without providing some solution for everything that it is currently useful for. Bounces are just one variation on the broader theme of DSN's. > There is no compelling reason to delay the mail validation process. Whether that is true really depends on how narrowly you want to view the email world. If you want to ordain that all mailable domains must have the full knowledge of their namespace in every host that they have an MX record pointing at, this is a very tall order for changes from how a significant fraction of the net works today. > It provides no benefit that cannot be met with immediate >validation, barring the super-secure bastion host scenario Bill Cole >mentions, which could be resolved with some work. (I should admit - >I don't do what I preach, as the provider I choose to have host my >domain does accept spam that I'd prefer it refuse during SMTP, but I >have pushed them to fix the problem, and they do refuse a good >fraction of the spam during SMTP.) That example was ONE case. Without delaying the validation of the target address, every domain in which there are mail addresses would need published MX records pointing to machines with live access to the authoritative knowledge store for each domain it serves. We could kiss UUCP goodbye finally, and if you think no one still uses it you are quite wrong. Large organizations that now have single external faces on their mail systems for many possible subdomains which actually route internally in complex ways would need to be redesigned. As an example of this, I work with a major systems vendor with a global workforce whose individual email addresses reflect their geographic location, yet the exterior MX record set for all of the subdomains is one server farm. That server farm has to know how to route mail to many different subdomains handled on many different machines around the world. It DOES NOT have access to the full user namespace for all of those domains, it merely knows that it accepts mail for the various subdomains and hands it off internally to machines closer to the HR departments for the various branches. Even without exposed subdomains, such situations are problematic because companies beyond a certain size simply do not operate as single entities and cannot operate their email systems on single giant machines that know everything simultaneously. The fact of an address no longer being valid can easily take a day to propagate throughout a global operation, and it is a rare large company that can make the event of a user add or delete look instantaneous to their entire email system. >I forget whether SpamAssassin supports what we're currently calling >CallerID Verification. It has NO_DNS_FOR_FROM: Domain in From >header has no MX or A DNS records, but I think it doesn't have the >full CallerID Verification. I admit to having only skimmed the stuff on 'CallerID' because it looks like the same unscaleable stuff that has been in in some MTA's for a while with essentially tries a RCPT verification of every MAIL FROM given, and there are probably enough of us managing mail servers who will address that sort of behavior as just another attack (null route the offending machine) so that the inherent scaling and indirect attack problems don't ever make it to visibility. That said, the practice of a DNS check on any non-null MAIL FROM argument is reasonable and done by many modern MTA's as a basic bar to the most clueless spammers. Doing the same on From lines is a little more problematic, but it is not completely unreasonable. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 20:40:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04947 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGZG-0006hn-Ej for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU1eAFS025769 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGZG-0006hW-3J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:10 -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 UAA04918 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:39:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGZD-00068h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGZD-00068e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGZ9-0006dh-1n; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGYl-0006d3-Tz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:39:46 -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 UAA04914 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGYj-00068b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:39:37 -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 1AQGYj-00068Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:39:37 -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 1AQGea-0004d9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:45:40 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:23:28 +1030." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:45:40 -0500 Status: O "Chris" wrote: > If any in this group thinks they can define spam then I am afraid > they are mistaken other than to say it is indefinable which is > *exactly* what the document states Then why the heck did you ask me to define it? Preparing for an attack on a straw man? Many proposals claim to address the "spam" problem. Fewer define what the "spam" problem is. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 21:00:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05134 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGse-0007Ya-8H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU20C0q029042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGse-0007YL-0r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:12 -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 UAA05106 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGsb-0006J5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGsb-0006J2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGsV-0007UR-FO; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQGra-0007TA-UI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:06 -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 UAA05090 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGrY-0006Ii-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:04 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQGrX-0006If-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:04 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-182.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.182]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 2017264280; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:29:02 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Alan DeKok" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:32:48 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I do apologise. my reply was curt and could have been mistaken as personal. it was not intended to be that way. to explain In your statement... > Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think > they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll > stop spam is another question. you raised the point "whether or not they'll stop spam" I just wanted to make it clear that *pull* is not about "stopping spam" if it can't be defined how can it be stopped Many people try define spam as it applies to them but that is a very opinionated view of what is and what isn't spam, and should not be the basis of any spam reduction system No having said that... The immediate side effect of any pull or origin verification system is those who hide behind false return addresses will no longer be able to do so. why do they hide?, so they can't be traced. if they can be they will stop... till they find another way. So from a technical point of view this is a never ending story. just like copy protection on software. you cannot beat the hackers on technical methods alone. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:16 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > "Chris" wrote: > > If any in this group thinks they can define spam then I am afraid > > they are mistaken other than to say it is indefinable which is > > *exactly* what the document states > > Then why the heck did you ask me to define it? Preparing for an > attack on a straw man? > > Many proposals claim to address the "spam" problem. Fewer define > what the "spam" problem is. > > Alan DeKok. > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 22:04:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06144 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQHsa-0001iG-Ho for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU34C7E006581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQHsa-0001i4-BY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:12 -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 WAA06129 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:03:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQHsX-0006vN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQHsW-0006vK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQHsO-0001fp-GO; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQHrs-0001fN-3t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:03:28 -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 WAA06124 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQHrp-0006v6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:03:25 -0500 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQHro-0006v2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:03:24 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp10.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAU33M95018262; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:03:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <005601c3b6ee$858feea0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "Chris" Cc: "ASRG" References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:03:23 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I like Chris idea about class system and his argument that spam cannot be defined. However that argument should not be stretched to far. Most of us do throw away the same kind of mails. I think blacklists and classifications could go hand in hand. Mail clients could be connected to blacklist servers and be part in a voting system. When I delete a mail I will have two buttons [Delete] and [Delete spam] and the later takes part in the voting system. Of course the mail client is equipped with a classification system allowing me to automatically delete any notifications I do not want. Chris suggestion looks difficult for an average user but I would implement it as check boxes in a mail client making it very easy to use: [ ] "allow all messages from unknown" [...] [ ] "allow class::UCE" [<-] [ ] "allow class UCE hardware" [<-] [x] "allow class UCE hardware electrical tools" [...] [ ] "allow class UCE hardware mechanical tools" [...] [x] "allow class::personal" [...] Since I am interested in electrical tools I will not press the [Delete spam] button when such a notification arrives, but if a spammer sends a notification about mechanical tools I will vote by pressing the [Delete spam] button and a community of angry recipients could blacklist the company. I guess that in such a world it is better to be honest and classify yourself. It would be a sign of you being an earnest merchant. If I have sent a mail to a company the mail client should allow a notification from that company. In that notification the company could include its classifications and the mail client could ask me if I want to allow notifications with such contents. As a teacher at a university I think my colleagues could form a voting group. Several similar voting groups could be connected in a network. I would then probably subscribe to a blacklist and a white list made by the Swedish University Network. I have received spam about sewing machines in Florida and they are spam however interested I am in sewing machines in Sweden. That is why a classification system is not sufficient. /DK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" To: "Jon Kyme" ; "Dag Kihlman" Cc: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:20 AM Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > > What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > > systems? > > > > Have I missed something? > > yes you have > > pull forces the id of the remote server *without* rewriting the entire mail > transport system > > it can be implemented gradually > > i.e. mail from non pull servers are given a grace period (1-2yrs?) > > after that point all non pull mail is returned with an error message > > most important.... > > PULL DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS OR WHAT ISN'T SPAM. > > only the receiver is in the position to do that. > > thats why I recommend a "class" system be instantiated at the same time (as > pull or whatever ID system) > > so the user can set rules something like > "deny all messages from unknown" > "deny class::UCE" > "accept class::UCE::hardware::electrical_tools" > "accept class::personal" > (examples only) > > > this is my legal + technical argument > > both must co-exist to get a spam *reduction* system working > > there will never be a spam prevention system > > because spam cannot be defined! > > Regards > Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jon > > Kyme > > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:46 PM > > To: Dag Kihlman > > Cc: ASRG > > Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > > > > What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > > systems? > > > > Have I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 29 22:31:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06390 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIIh-0002x0-GQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU3VB59011336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIIh-0002wl-Cd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:11 -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 WAA06378 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIIe-00074L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIId-00074I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIIY-0002uQ-0P; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIIG-0002ts-HH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:44 -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 WAA06365 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIID-000743-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:41 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIIC-000740-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:40 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:01 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2397525687; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:59 -0500 Message-ID: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Subject: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O For your perusal, the following accumulated stats for the past 6-7 months that you might find interesting: http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/wcsmtpstats.htm Only the past 3 months I had the logs turned on each day in anticipating of getting some better analysis. Engineering design notes, Log analysis and suggestions: The rejection stats in the logs are based on what happens at each state point in the classic SMTP protocol state machine: http:://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/smtpstatemachine.jpg Connect State: The White/Black list and RBL checking is done at the connection level with the rejection response delayed until the RCPT TO: state is reached. This was done because we quickly learned that a certain group of spammers (software) will continue to connect non-stop if the connection was immediately and passively dropped. This information was being logged and accumulated in a very high volume. In other words, it didn't seem like they were 'learning" about the passive connection drops. By providing some SMTP feedback, it helped resolves their "scheduler." I selected the RCPT TO: state rather than earlier states to provide rejection feedback so that we can log the target email address to analyze any possible any false negatives issues by the RBLs. Suggestions: SMTP guidelines may suggest server implementations performing IP connection filtering should provide a SMTP rejection response at the greeting, HELO/EHLO or the RCPT TO: state points rather than passively dropping the connection to help reduce continue attack by "dumb spammer software." HELO/EHLO State: In our original implementation, we provided no logic to check the client host issued by the remote MTA. In 1999, we offered an optional strict intranet client host domain checking for closed systems. In August 21, 2003, we added new default logic to perform basic format client domain format validation as defined by the RFC 2821 section 4.1.3 (Address Literal), this includes qualifying the usage of a bracketed IP address provided by the client and checking the IP against for fraud IPs (using your IP for example). As you can see beginning with the August stats, this drastically helped reduce illegal entries at the HELO/EHLO state. The most common illegal usage is "HELO your.IP.address" without brackets. Suggestion: Obviously, the HELO/EHLO is probably the first of the most importantly state point where technical compliance must be followed to help address the illegal entries. There are few proposals on this subject of HELO/EHLO DNS lookup validations. I would like to suggest that the SMTP specs be changed to suggest that a bracket IP address be used in all cases for all MTA clients. This will allow for a quick non-DNS comparison against the IP connect address. There is no need to provide a FQDN. However, it does, it must match the connecting IP address. Legacy clients will be handled by defined the SMTP server implementation. My only suggestion here is that the SMTP puts it in writing that SMTP server are NOT required to support old non-compliance software. Obviously, server software will do a minimum here and allow the client to go next state, but by adding the requirement to the specs, software vendors can begin to change their client ware. Once possibility to offer an new positive response code: 251 Warning: Illegal Client down. Future entry may be denied. MAIL FROM: State: Our new callerid verification method (WCSAP) was turned on November 23, 2003. This is a new hook into our SMTP server that is called once the MAIL FROM: return path is provided. The connection RBL rejection flag is passed to WCSAP so that it can log it and skip the callerid verification process. In this case, a MAIL FROM: 552 response is provided. As you can see in the November 2003 stats, before the 23rd, RBL provided the strongest rejection method before the RCPT TO: state point is reached. However, with WCSAP implemented, Caller ID verification now provides an even higher rejection rate, nearly making RBL obsolete. This might suggest that the RBL databases, I am using BL.SPAMCOP.NET, is doing an excellent job verifiable with return path validation logic. In our WCSAP implementation, it follows a standard SMTP sender process, honoring MX logic, etc. It looks for the response code for a RCPT TO: and if a positive result is provided, it goes a step further to check for open relay sites by issues an unique and random RCPT TO: email address. Optionally, WCSAP can return a 552 for the open relay site or allow it to go thru with a 250 response code. The open relay checks works great! However, it is problematic with YAHOO.COM which is inherently for all intent and purpose an OPEN RELAY site! I have my RejectOpenRelaySite option enabled in WCSAP, so sorry YAHOO, fix your system. Your system is NOT helping the internet email problem! I put more weight on an open relay site being a spam site. Suggestions: By far, the MAIL FROM: is the probably the focus point of most anti-spam proposals. I view WCSAP as a "HOOK" to validate the MAIL FROM: state point. The implementation is just one. If a better approach comes along that provides the same but optimized "verification" results, fine! WCSAP might be changed to use it. From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 22:32:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06423 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIJX-00039k-1W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:32:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU3W2Y6012126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIJW-00039F-OX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:32:02 -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 WAA06413 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIJT-00074m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIJS-00074j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIJV-00032H-76; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIIc-0002ux-Tc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:07 -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 WAA06375 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIIZ-00074F-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:03 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIIZ-00074C-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:03 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:19 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2397543843; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Matthew Elvey" , References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:31:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Elvey" To: Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > > Yakov wrote: > > > > There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from > > harvesting email addresses. > > It's a poor excuse. There are ISPs that detect harvesting attacks and > when they do, deal with it - some then refuse even email to valid > addresses. They can refuse the email without stating or otherwise > giving away the information that the reason for refusal is email to a > nonexistent account. Matthew, I agree. sites such as Yahoo who allow all RCPT TO: are in my view, for all intent open relay sites. It encourages and promotes the usages of obsfucated email addresses across the board to all systems. In other words, it makes the matter worst and adds overhead across the board to all systems. There is another possible side to this, and that is to "collect" data to perform anti-spam research. I know that is what I did for a short period where we accepted all mail in order to collect data and research the problem. >IMO, MAIL FROM: <> needs to be deprecated in favor > of refusal during SMTP. There is no compelling reason to delay the mail > validation process. It provides no benefit that cannot be met with > immediate validation, barring the super-secure bastion host scenario > Bill Cole mentions, which could be resolved with some work. (I should > admit - I don't do what I preach, as the provider I choose to have host > my domain does accept spam that I'd prefer it refuse during SMTP, but I > have pushed them to fix the problem, and they do refuse a good fraction > of the spam during SMTP.) > > I forget whether SpamAssassin supports what we're currently calling > CallerID Verification. It has NO_DNS_FOR_FROM: Domain in From header > has no MX or A DNS records, but I think it doesn't have the full > CallerID Verification. I would believe it does not. I am only saying this because an active 3rd party anti-spam author who incorporates SpamAssasin in our beta team. His only comment to me was that he was afraid we will taking away some of his future business. :-) We don't try to step of the toes of 3rd party developers writing for our package. We normally concentrate providing the API and HOOKS functionality into our client/server system as illustrated here: http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/AntiVirusSpam.htm Our current release only offers the HOOK into the DATA state point. We quickly learned that while this offered anti-spam (and other special processing capabilities), from a anti-spam standpoint, it might have "help" spammers because they have the most treasured state point, the "RCPT TO:" stage to gain informaiton. So from a anti-spam standpoint, the DATA hook helps, but it might makes matters worst by increasing the frequency of spam. But as with everyone else, the spam problem because so pervasive especially with SOBIG exploiting everything that is wrong about the legacy SMTP protocol, we simply could not wait for anyone to solve the problem at more detail levels. I have to admit I naively thought it was a waste of time as eventually the issue would be solved using the new crime laws for spam. After all, using your address for the MAIL FROM: is fraud. In any case, in the new current anti-spam design, the design criteria is based on SMTP technical compliance. Each SMTP command will a hook for extended logic. We will inherently supply technical compliance logic with the flexibility to allow future improvements by 3rd party vendors or an official IETF method is established. For now, I believe the Caller ID verification is the best method to prune the majority of illegal entry into the system. I have been saving our logs for the last 7 months. I finally finish a SMTP LOG statistics reporter for our system. Check out some of these results: http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/wcsmtpstats.htm See my next message on this where I provide some analysis and possible new SMTP suggestions. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 22:50:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06846 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIb3-0004Gs-HH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU3o9CP016412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIb3-0004Gd-De for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:09 -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 WAA06834 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIaz-0007Ji-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIaz-0007Jf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIaw-0004EG-Gb; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIaN-0004Dv-IT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:27 -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 WAA06823 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIaK-0007JU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:24 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIaJ-0007JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:23 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:41 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2398646281; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:40 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:49:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > Yakov wrote: > > You still have not answered the question - how do you know there are no > false positives? > What method did you use to figure that out? Sure I have. I said I have analyzing the logs. I have been doing random double checks where it might seen questionable. > And also, what is your definition of a "false positive"? As a mail transport/gateway designer, I am basing the design on technical comformity. Hence, a false positiive is restricting what is otherwise a legit client connecting into the system to deliver mail. The WCSAP tuning process will be on going learning the behavior early day, adding new administrative features, little bit of AI into it, etc, etc, etc. Also, it isn't that hard. If there was a REAL legit system or message not getting here, we hear about it soon enough. You should concentrate your efforts on technical conformity of the specs. No solution will solve the spammer problem 100% and you will be beating a dead horse trying to look for one. In my view, your only option is to make conformity in the future SMTP functional specification a requirement with server-implementation backward compatibility. That has nothing to do with DNS, Mail Filters, SPAM vs NO SPAM, BULK vs NON-BULK, non-server vs server based MTA clients, etc. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 22:55:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06919 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIfr-0004WP-BO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU3t7bA017375 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIfp-0004Uq-40 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:05 -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 WAA06909 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIfl-0007L0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIfk-0007Kx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIfm-0004Ot-BV; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIev-0004O8-Tr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:09 -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 WAA06898 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:53:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIes-0007Kd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:06 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIer-0007Ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:05 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:25 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2398930609; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:24 -0500 Message-ID: <005201c3b6f5$a5517e50$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" References: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions Organization: Santronics Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:54:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions > For your perusal, the following accumulated stats for the past 6-7 months > that you might find interesting: > > http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/wcsmtpstats.htm > > Only the past 3 months I had the logs turned on each day in anticipating of > getting some better analysis. > > Engineering design notes, Log analysis and suggestions: > > The rejection stats in the logs are based on what happens at each state > point in the classic SMTP protocol state machine: > > http:://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/smtpstatemachine.jpg This image can now be found in the above first URL. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:06:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07103 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIqb-00052n-Mb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU46DtE019389 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIqb-00052e-G3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:13 -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 XAA07090 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIqX-0007RU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIqX-0007RR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIqQ-00050P-9g; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQIpv-0004zQ-7P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:31 -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 XAA07075 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIpq-0007R1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:26 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQIpo-0007Qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:24 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU45PGU032260; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:25 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU45PhC013251; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:25 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU45Paj013249; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:25 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Message-ID: <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Nov 2003 23:05:24 -0500 Status: O Hector Santos : > You should concentrate your efforts on technical conformity of the specs. > No solution will solve the spammer problem 100% and you will be beating a > dead horse trying to look for one. In my view, your only option is to make > conformity in the future SMTP functional specification a requirement with > server-implementation backward compatibility. That has nothing to do with > DNS, Mail Filters, SPAM vs NO SPAM, BULK vs NON-BULK, non-server vs server > based MTA clients, etc. I think Hector has a point here. Not that we should give up other approaches, but that there are ways we can make life more difficult for spammers by requiring strict technical conformity and failing closed rather than open. This is is a viable approach because there are so many fewer semding servers (concentrated at ISPs) than receiving servers. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:21:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07350 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJ4u-0006M5-Oc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:21:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4L0B9024418 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:21:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJ4u-0006Ll-A1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:21:00 -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 XAA07316 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJ4s-0007ZR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:20:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJ4r-0007Z4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:20:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJ3y-0006Du-Fl; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:20:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJ32-0006Cv-V8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:19:05 -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 XAA07286 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJ30-0007YO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:19:02 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJ2z-0007Y8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:19:02 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAU4IqW29090 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:52 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:18:52 +0000 Status: O On Nov 28, 5:15pm, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- } From: "Yakov Shafranovich" } } > The method you are refering is similar to what is more commonly known as } > "Challenge/Response" (C/R). } } Not the same thing. WCSAP checks the MAIL FROM: state point. C/R } systems go to the RCPT TO: statement, and in some cases complete the } session. It does share an important "feature" of C/R systems, though: It's cost- shifting. If someone (or some worm) sends you 1000 messages with forged senders in the brasslantern.com domain, you're going to hit my MX host 1000 times to refute them all. Why is it *my* responsibility to expend bandwidth and server cycles to help you reject the spam run? How is what you're doing to my server any less an abuse of resources than what the spammer is doing to you? Suppose a large ISP were to adopt the "caller ID" scheme (one already may have, see below). A spammer forges winserver.com MAIL FROM: on a couple of million messages destined for that ISP, distributed across all its dozens of MXs. They all begin connecting to your MX to ID the caller. Are you prepared to handle that load, or have you just been DoS'd into oblivion? On Nov 29, 8:32pm, Bill Cole wrote: } } I admit to having only skimmed the stuff on 'CallerID' because it } looks like the same unscaleable stuff that has been in in some MTA's } for a while with essentially tries a RCPT verification of every MAIL } FROM given In fact -- although I don't have absolute evidence of this -- it appears that the several days last month when verizon.net was rejecting all mail from the ASRG list, occurred because verizon implemented a "caller ID" check of some sort in their mail servers and the IETF mail system was failing the check. (The list is reaching me again, though I don't know which end got fixed.) More recently, I missed a message from another mailing list, and got a bounce probe from the list software (which fortunately came through) because my MX forwarder's DNS went down briefly, causing verizon's test to fail. This seems excessively brittle to me. } and there are probably enough of us managing mail servers } who will address that sort of behavior as just another attack (null } route the offending machine) so that the inherent scaling and } indirect attack problems don't ever make it to visibility. Exactly -- a "MAIL FROM: <>" followed by "RCPT TO:" an unknown address is the signature of, for example, a system that is bouncing wormspew to the worm-forged sender address. How would the administrator of the MXs that are being "caller ID" probed, know the difference? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:42:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07666 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJPN-0007Ex-G5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4g9Gi027825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJPN-0007Ei-Bk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:09 -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 XAA07625 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJPL-0007kR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJPK-0007kO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJPE-0007Az-Gm; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJOc-0007Ai-A2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:22 -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 XAA07594 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJOa-0007jU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:20 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJOZ-0007jR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 6783 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 692 invoked by uid 101); 29 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Jukka Inkeri Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS and rMX, release 2 Message-ID: <20031130044119.GA11809@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FC629B4.9090008@solidmatrix.com> <20031128215919.GC25341@iridium.mv.net> <20031129023006.GA65913@Space.Net> <20031129043746.GC27446@iridium.mv.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: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:19 -0500 Status: O On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:55:12PM +0200, Jukka Inkeri wrote: > I have updated our ideas. Now it is more simple "one dns query" -method. > No need anymore to take care of networks. > It also include posibilities to handle blacklist in own net. It give to > operators posibilities to block/control some "not so good" mta. > > http://www.awot.fi/sf/browser/showfile?cust=awkoulutus&subdir=dns&doc=reverse_mx It's hard to read because it doesn't wrap properly in my browser (probably because I'm still using an antique Netscape). But in summary it looks like this would modify the "MTA" portion of MTAMark to use MX records instead of TXT. And (if I read this right) it looks like you intend that the return value has special meanings (much like the values of various DNSBLs have special meanings). So e.g.: --> This IP address does not participate in MTAMark/MX 127.0.0.1 --> This IP address is NOT an MTA 127.0.0.2 --> This IP address IS an MTA --> future definition This certainly addresses the wildcard concern in MTAMark. One question is: does this conflict with any existing use of MX records in in-addr.arpa ? I think that would be hard to tell, which may be why MTAMark chose to use a unique new subdomain/keyword scheme. -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:43:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07760 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJQE-0007iz-NP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4h2jM029687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJQE-0007ik-Ic for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:02 -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 XAA07722 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJQC-0007me-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJQB-0007ma-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJQC-0007bM-CH; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJPz-0007VC-K7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:47 -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 XAA07697 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJPx-0007m5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:45 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJPw-0007m2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:42:44 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-182.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.182]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C87464CA2; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:12:42 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Dag Kihlman" , "Chris" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <005601c3b6ee$858feea0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:16:29 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > I like Chris idea about class system and his argument that spam cannot be > defined. However that argument should not be stretched to far. > Most of us do throw away the same kind of mails. > (blush) I would argue here that the vast majority of that thrown away e-mail was from a forged source so *pull* would throw it automatically for you. And it would never get onto the network. For short e-mails that is an insignificant saving, but a lot of e-mails tend to have attachments, inlined images, html, virii etc. etc. the bandwidth savings could be enormous. > The mail client is equipped with a classification system allowing > me to automatically delete any notifications I do not want. > Chris suggestion looks difficult for an average user but I would implement it as > check boxes > in a mail client making it very easy to use: my rules example was purely that. an example. writing a complex set of rules could be difficult even for experts with a class system whole swathes of mail could be affected by one rule! The most intuitive method of enabling those rules is a selection box system so a person can "drill down" to a particular inclusion/exclusion. It would also not necessarily be on the clients machine (mail client) doing such requires that the client be aware of the class system. I prefer if we don't try and force people to upgrade their client software this will generate a lot of resistance especially if it costs. which of course it will for many. The class system would be implemented at the host server (receiver) and could be accessed by a web page for personalisation. That is not to say that client software could not log on, authenticate itself and provide a better way of doing so. > from Florida and they are spam however interested I am in sewing machines in > Sweden. That is why a classification system is not sufficient. good point. but that does not break a class system another class would be global, country specific, region specific etc.. the server could easily drop such mail with a fail code if its region was not the correct one There was a burst of spam some time ago from dentists, I am in Australia and they were in the US. What good to me is a dentist in the US? (how much did that mailout cost them ?. I assume some scamster* had sold it to them) Regards Chris * a scamster is like a hamster but more like a rat and closer to the ground ;) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:45:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07866 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJSD-0007vT-8O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4j437030370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJSC-0007tl-Id for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:04 -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 XAA07807 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:44:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJSA-00000e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJSA-00000b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJSA-0007nr-AE; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJRX-0007nX-Hs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:44:23 -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 XAA07794 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJRV-00000J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:44:21 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJRU-00000G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:44:20 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAU4iKC29125 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:44:20 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031130044419.ZM29124@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <005601c3b6ee$858feea0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Comments: In reply to "Dag Kihlman" "Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)" (Nov 30, 4:03am) References: <005601c3b6ee$858feea0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:44:19 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 4:03am, Dag Kihlman wrote: } } I think blacklists and classifications could go hand in hand. Mail clients } could be connected to blacklist servers and be part in a voting system. When } I delete a mail I will have two buttons [Delete] and [Delete spam] and the } later takes part in the voting system. The trouble with this is that people soon stop using it properly. It's fairly clear from the behavior of AOL's "TOS Notification" system that users who are provided with a [Delete spam] button will begin to treat it as a "quick unsubscribe" and cast a spam vote for all sorts of things, e.g. just because they've changed their mind about receiving it. I'm not wild about the idea of a pull system for email, but it at least would not have this issue; the [Delete spam] button would be replaced by something more akin to killing a thread in a newsreader, which is more often what the users seem to intend. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:51:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08039 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJY2-0008Ak-Bx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4p6gM031408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJY2-0008AV-6p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:06 -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 XAA08023 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJY0-00007J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJXz-00007F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJXy-00086i-Fk; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJX6-00085y-Dx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:08 -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 XAA07986 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJX3-00006k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:06 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJX3-00006g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:05 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF28FB064E for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> To: ASRG From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification 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, 29 Nov 2003 23:50:04 -0500 Status: O At 11:05 PM -0500 11/29/03, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >This is is a viable approach because there are so many fewer semding servers >(concentrated at ISPs) than receiving servers. What is your basis for this? There are far more non-ISP servers (sending and receiving servers) than there are ISP servers. ISP's carry the most volume and have the most users, but in a head count of machines intentionally and actively running MTA's, they hold a minority. Except for ISP's, where the scaling makes it natural to end up with fewer sending machines than receiving machines, there isn't a big difference in those numbers, and at the low end of the scale the machines are often identical. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Nov 29 23:59:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08205 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJfm-0008NY-No for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU4x6Ho032202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJfm-0008NJ-If for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:06 -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 XAA08196 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJfk-0000CD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJfj-0000CA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJfh-0008Jc-HX; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJf0-0008JA-Tn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:18 -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 XAA08187 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJey-0000Bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:16 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJex-0000Bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:16 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-182.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.182]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id CFD2062269; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:28:14 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Bart Schaefer" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1031130044419.ZM29124@candle.brasslantern.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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:32:02 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > that users who are provided with a [Delete spam] button will begin to > treat it as a "quick unsubscribe" and cast a spam vote for all sorts of > things, e.g. just because they've changed their mind about receiving it. > I agree. blacklists (scattergun aproach) tend to run at the whim of the blacklist owner and the people who submit reports to them. If the owner cracks a wally with you for some reason or if an idiot sharing your server leaves an open formmail script that a spammer manages to find. then that can cause irrepairable damage (as they do now). Then they hide behind the "We don't enforce these lists. just provide a public service" argument sorry if I offend any one here who may run a blacklist. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Bart > Schaefer > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 3:14 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > On Nov 30, 4:03am, Dag Kihlman wrote: > } > } I think blacklists and classifications could go hand in hand. > Mail clients > } could be connected to blacklist servers and be part in a voting > system. When > } I delete a mail I will have two buttons [Delete] and [Delete > spam] and the > } later takes part in the voting system. > > The trouble with this is that people soon stop using it properly. > > It's fairly clear from the behavior of AOL's "TOS Notification" system > that users who are provided with a [Delete spam] button will begin to > treat it as a "quick unsubscribe" and cast a spam vote for all sorts of > things, e.g. just because they've changed their mind about receiving it. > > I'm not wild about the idea of a pull system for email, but it at least > would not have this issue; the [Delete spam] button would be replaced by > something more akin to killing a thread in a newsreader, which is more > often what the users seem to intend. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 30 00:07:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08432 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJnb-0000qA-8V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU57BmY003224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJna-0000oW-Ks for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:10 -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 AAA08411 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJnY-0000Kh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJnX-0000Ke-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJnR-0000kz-7A; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJnN-0000kZ-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:57 -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 AAA08392 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJnL-0000Kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:55 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJnK-0000KY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:54 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip129-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.129]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 46DD2371FC for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:01 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) Message-ID: <20031130050701.GC1515@m433> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:07:01 -0500 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:50:12AM +1030, Chris wrote > this is one of the major problems with IP blacklists they are counter > productive and damage all they touch > > an example I was doing a programming job for a university. they > stopped emailing me. when I looked harder I found they were being > blocked by an IP blacklist. that was only last week! > > the first thing that must be agreed on is that spam is not spam > to everyone > > once that is accepted as the truth then we can move on to better > control systems *PLEASE* show us a "better control system", and watch the world beat a path to your door. DNSbls are not perfect, but so far they're the best weapon available. Unless everybody runs their own server, or gets to configure their own filters (possible on modified qmail systems like my ISP has) it will have to be done on an ISP-wide basis. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:18:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08756 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJyC-0001V9-IM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5I8TS005765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJyC-0001Uu-Ef for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:08 -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 AAA08746 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJyA-0000Vi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJy9-0000Vf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJy5-0001RE-3N; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQJxz-0001Qx-H7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:55 -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 AAA08738 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJxx-0000VI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:53 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQJxw-0000VF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:17:52 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:13 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2403958750; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:18:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > It does share an important "feature" of C/R systems, though: It's cost- > shifting. If someone (or some worm) sends you 1000 messages with forged > senders in the brasslantern.com domain, you're going to hit my MX host > 1000 times to refute them all. Why is it *my* responsibility to expend > bandwidth and server cycles to help you reject the spam run? How is what > you're doing to my server any less an abuse of resources than what the > spammer is doing to you? Correct. Optimization is surely next on the list for WCSAP. > Suppose a large ISP were to adopt the "caller ID" scheme (one already may > have, see below). A spammer forges winserver.com MAIL FROM: on a couple of > million messages destined for that ISP, distributed across all its dozens > of MXs. They all begin connecting to your MX to ID the caller. Are you > prepared to handle that load, or have you just been DoS'd into oblivion? Doesn't this apply to any approach? A DNS based solution can also be overloaded just as well. But no, your right. The process has to take this into account. My main design goal was to work out the interface into our SMTP state machine - a black box concept. Abuse, blacklisting, optimization is next for this specific implementation. I already have some ideas that address this. A cached or database is required, maybe timed based. This could also be based on a network of peer-to-peer systems. > More recently, I missed a message from another mailing list, and got a > bounce probe from the list software (which fortunately came through) > because my MX forwarder's DNS went down briefly, causing verizon's test > to fail. This seems excessively brittle to me. If I felt it was, trust me, I wouldn't be putting it in our system. It works. The kinks need to be worked out. By far, it is the #1 method to drastic reduce spoofing spammers using current technology - TODAY! > Exactly -- a "MAIL FROM: <>" followed by "RCPT TO:" an unknown address > is the signature of, for example, a system that is bouncing wormspew to > the worm-forged sender address. How would the administrator of the MXs > that are being "caller ID" probed, know the difference? Good point. What we did here was to make the HELO and MAIL FROM: definable. So you can define what you want to put in there: SapMailFrom SapLocalHost One of the beta testers needed to do this for his HOTMAIL account which is violating the RFC by not accepting NULL addresses. But it doesn't end there. I am going to explore other ideas, such as use "VRFY" option, which many systems disable but it can be tested, and other ideas such as maybe using a new EHLO keyword: XSAP C: EHLO winserver.com S: 250-winserver.com, Pleased to meet you. S: 250-XSAP S: 250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN PLAIN-MD5 SHA-1 S: 250-AUTH=LOGIN S: 250 HELP C: XVALIDATE xy@whereever.com That way we can use MAIL FROM and also a loops. -- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:22:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08873 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQK22-0001ld-98 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5M6oT006787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQK22-0001lO-3b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:06 -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 AAA08864 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQK1z-0000YF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQK1z-0000YC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQK1w-0001eC-E6; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQK1E-0001dr-OB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:16 -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 AAA08852 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQK1C-0000Xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:14 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQK1B-0000Xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:21:13 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU5KJGU032766; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:20:19 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU5KJhC020185; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:20:19 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5KJfq020183; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:20:19 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Bill Cole Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Message-ID: <20031130052019.GA20166@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 00:20:19 -0500 Status: O Bill Cole : > At 11:05 PM -0500 11/29/03, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > >This is is a viable approach because there are so many fewer semding > >servers (concentrated at ISPs) than receiving servers. > > What is your basis for this? Well, for starters, the fact that people connected to AOL (which, last I read, was still about 1/3rd of Internet users even America) never originate their own SMTP transactions. Also true of most Yahoo users and most Speakeasy users. > There are far more non-ISP servers (sending and receiving servers) > than there are ISP servers. ISP's carry the most volume and have the > most users, but in a head count of machines intentionally and > actively running MTA's, they hold a minority. You may be right -- but even if you are, what I was really arguing is that is we have a choice between technology that requires us to fix all the world's senders and technology that requires us to fix all the world's receivers, fixing *senders* is a much easier deployment problem. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:52:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09258 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKV5-0003Or-3d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5q7fj013063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKV5-0003Oc-06 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:07 -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 AAA09226 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKV2-0000l4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKV1-0000ky-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKUy-0003Ju-If; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKUK-0003JU-5k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:20 -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 AAA09212 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKUH-0000kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:17 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKUG-0000kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:17 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:35 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2405960140; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:34 -0500 Message-ID: <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hi Bart ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" > > Suppose a large ISP were to adopt the "caller ID" scheme (one already may > have, see below). A spammer forges winserver.com MAIL FROM: on a couple of > million messages destined for that ISP, distributed across all its dozens > of MXs. They all begin connecting to your MX to ID the caller. Are you > prepared to handle that load, or have you just been DoS'd into oblivion? I was thinking more about this when it dawn on me, this is non-issue. This is already controlled by server access and availability. The number of receiver threads are definable by the sysop with a server 421 greeting response of: 421 domain, Service not available. Try again later --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:52:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09273 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKV4-0003Ob-VO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5q6AF013047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKV4-0003OM-Pv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:06 -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 AAA09223 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKV2-0000l1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKV1-0000kx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKUz-0003K2-2V; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKUc-0003Jb-MB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:38 -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 AAA09215 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKUZ-0000ko-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:35 -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 1AQKUZ-0000kV-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:51:35 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500FZMHL1V0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:51:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Matthew Elvey , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 00:50:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > From: "Matthew Elvey" >>>Yakov wrote: >>> >>>There is a reason to their madness - it discourages spammers from >>>harvesting email addresses. >> >>It's a poor excuse. There are ISPs that detect harvesting attacks and >>when they do, deal with it - some then refuse even email to valid >>addresses. They can refuse the email without stating or otherwise >>giving away the information that the reason for refusal is email to a >>nonexistent account. > > > Matthew, > > I agree. sites such as Yahoo who allow all RCPT TO: are in my view, for all > intent open relay sites. It encourages and promotes the usages of obsfucated > email addresses across the board to all systems. In other words, it makes > the matter worst and adds overhead across the board to all systems. > But they are not an open relay! According to the requirements document (hhttp://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/7/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-00.txt): "1.3.26 Open Relay MTA An MTA which is configured to relay mail for local domains and foreign domains not associated with the MTA, without restricting access to the relay functions. In essence an Open Relay MTA typically relays messages for known and unknown domains because of improper configuration." In your definition of an open relay is a server that is allowed to say "250" to every RCPT TO command for a *local* domain! There is *nothing* in ANY RFC that states that an SMTP server is not allowed to do that. Therefore, your definition is inconsistent with the existing standards since you are expecting SMTP servers to do something that is not in the specs. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:54:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09316 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKWw-0003gm-J0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:54:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5s2FY014174 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:54:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKWw-0003gX-96 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:54:02 -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 AAA09305 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKWt-0000mc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKWt-0000mZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKWu-0003ao-ET; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKWF-0003aW-1s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:19 -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 AAA09302 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKWC-0000mQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:16 -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 1AQKWB-0000lz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:53:15 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5008VQHNKX1@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:52:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) In-reply-to: <20031130050701.GC1515@m433> To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3FC985A1.7060002@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031130050701.GC1515@m433> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Walter Dnes wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:50:12AM +1030, Chris wrote > >>this is one of the major problems with IP blacklists they are counter >>productive and damage all they touch >> >>an example I was doing a programming job for a university. they >>stopped emailing me. when I looked harder I found they were being >>blocked by an IP blacklist. that was only last week! >> >>the first thing that must be agreed on is that spam is not spam >>to everyone >> >>once that is accepted as the truth then we can move on to better >>control systems > > > *PLEASE* show us a "better control system", and watch the world beat a > path to your door. DNSbls are not perfect, but so far they're the best > weapon available. Unless everybody runs their own server, or gets to > configure their own filters (possible on modified qmail systems like my > ISP has) it will have to be done on an ISP-wide basis. > There are certain improvements that can be done for blacklists. For example, using more than one list, having the lists disclose their policies more clearly, etc. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:56:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09351 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKYu-0003rA-Je for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5u4tZ014818 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKYu-0003qv-FP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:04 -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 AAA09343 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKYr-0000nN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKYr-0000nK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKYs-0003jg-Du; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKYT-0003jL-Hb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:37 -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 AAA09340 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKYQ-0000nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:34 -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 1AQKYQ-0000n2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500FHFHROV0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:55:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Hector Santos , ASRG Message-id: <3FC98634.90106@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.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, 30 Nov 2003 00:55:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Hector Santos : > >>You should concentrate your efforts on technical conformity of the specs. >>No solution will solve the spammer problem 100% and you will be beating a >>dead horse trying to look for one. In my view, your only option is to make >>conformity in the future SMTP functional specification a requirement with >>server-implementation backward compatibility. That has nothing to do with >>DNS, Mail Filters, SPAM vs NO SPAM, BULK vs NON-BULK, non-server vs server >>based MTA clients, etc. > > > I think Hector has a point here. Not that we should give up other approaches, > but that there are ways we can make life more difficult for spammers by > requiring strict technical conformity and failing closed rather than open. > I have no problems with that, the problem that I have is the fact that some of things being discussed such as the "caller id" method of RCPT TO is not required by any existing specification. Alan Dekok has previously volunteered to write up a document going through the entire SMTP model as it is today, and pointing out every single section of it which is currently being exploited by spammers. The next logical step would be checking which points in the model can be adjusted and tightened to reduce spam. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 00:58:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09411 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKap-0003wY-IW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU5w3DL015151 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKap-0003wI-EY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:03 -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 AAA09394 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKam-0000oe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKam-0000ob-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKan-0003sa-7d; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKZt-0003rc-0h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:57:05 -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 AAA09374 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKZq-0000o1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:57:02 -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 1AQKZp-0000nm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:57:01 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500F7EHU4TT@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:56:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> To: Bart Schaefer Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC9868D.4000808@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.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, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bart Schaefer wrote: > > On Nov 29, 8:32pm, Bill Cole wrote: > } > } I admit to having only skimmed the stuff on 'CallerID' because it > } looks like the same unscaleable stuff that has been in in some MTA's > } for a while with essentially tries a RCPT verification of every MAIL > } FROM given > > In fact -- although I don't have absolute evidence of this -- it appears > that the several days last month when verizon.net was rejecting all mail > from the ASRG list, occurred because verizon implemented a "caller ID" > check of some sort in their mail servers and the IETF mail system was > failing the check. (The list is reaching me again, though I don't know > which end got fixed.) > There are existing issues with rDNS configuration on IETF's machines. We were not aware of any outstanding issues such as some kind of other "caller id" check aside from. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:02:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09516 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKes-0004LW-Hz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU62Exu016700 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKes-0004LH-94 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:14 -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 BAA09513 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKep-0000sb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKep-0000sY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKef-0004Dh-VB; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKeL-0004DW-OX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:41 -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 BAA09505 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKeI-0000qa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:38 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKeI-0000qX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:38 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60679B065F for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031130052019.GA20166@thyrsus.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> <20031130052019.GA20166@thyrsus.com> To: ASRG From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:01:34 -0500 Status: O At 12:20 AM -0500 11/30/03, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >Bill Cole : >> At 11:05 PM -0500 11/29/03, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> >> >This is is a viable approach because there are so many fewer semding >> >servers (concentrated at ISPs) than receiving servers. >> >> What is your basis for this? > >Well, for starters, the fact that people connected to AOL (which, last >I read, was still about 1/3rd of Internet users even America) never >originate their own SMTP transactions. Also true of most Yahoo users >and most Speakeasy users. Those users never terminate their own inbound SMTP transactions. All the SMTP for recreational users and businesses who don't operate their own mail servers typically bottlenecks through ISP servers, although it is somewhat likely for the small businesses to also generate mail from senders that are not also receiving MTA's, i.e. things like mailing gadgets associated with websites. the exception to that is that most end users in that class DO in fact initiate their own SMTP: to their providers' servers. If changes need to be made in sending agents like the myriad of MUA's that use SMTP to submit mail, that's a huge issue. On a larger scale, there are a significant number of companies with far more senders than receivers. For example, I am currently working in an environment where there are approximately 150 different hosts which handle their own outbound SMTP to the world, and some of those have more than one SMTP sender implementation on them. Yet there are only 2 machines with very tightly administered identical MTA's that can accept SMTP connections from the outside world. That is not a particularly unusual corporate environment. >> There are far more non-ISP servers (sending and receiving servers) >> than there are ISP servers. ISP's carry the most volume and have the >> most users, but in a head count of machines intentionally and >> actively running MTA's, they hold a minority. > >You may be right -- Just think about it for a minute about all the non-ISP companies handling their own mail service. It is a practical endeavor at about the same scale where it becomes practical to have a full-time one-man IT department. It's a lot of mail systems of scales smaller than any serious ISP, but it is still a LOT of mail systems. >but even if you are, what I was really arguing is that is >we have a choice between technology that requires us to fix all the >world's senders and technology that requires us to fix all the world's >receivers, fixing *senders* is a much easier deployment problem. I don't think so. I have spent much of the past year trying to evangelize a reduction in senders to one per host in the environment described above (i.e. to eliminate or trivialize things like JavaMail in web apps and worse abominations that barely implement a working subset of SMTP) so that mail is auditable. Cutting down further is not going to happen because there's no compelling reason to do so and some tangible reasons not to. The result is 150 senders, 2 receivers. In the end, I expect that there will need to be fixes to both senders and receivers, -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:19:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09817 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKvD-0005eU-NB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6J72s021720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKvD-0005eF-IX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:07 -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 BAA09798 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKvA-00010q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKvA-00010n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKv7-0005bv-IH; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQKuR-0005Y3-VB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:20 -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 BAA09786 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQKuP-00010J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:17 -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 1AQKuO-0000zr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500FHIITIV0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:17:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC98B87.50309@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 01:17:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>Suppose a large ISP were to adopt the "caller ID" scheme (one already may >>have, see below). A spammer forges winserver.com MAIL FROM: on a couple > > of > >>million messages destined for that ISP, distributed across all its dozens >>of MXs. They all begin connecting to your MX to ID the caller. Are you >>prepared to handle that load, or have you just been DoS'd into oblivion? > > > Doesn't this apply to any approach? A DNS based solution can also be > overloaded just as well. > DNS lookups are *much* more lightweight than SMTP sessions. According to RFC 1035, DNS queries can be done over UDP, with a limit of 512 bytes per query, with the usual ones much smaller than that. This has two advantages - very low transfer size, and also the usage of UDP does not require an acknowledgement to be sent back unlike TCP, reducing traffic. Also, DNS information tends to be cached all over the Internet. That is why an DNS method is being pushed in LMAP, since it is more lightweight. As a matter of fact the "L" in "LMAP" stands for "lightweight". Plus many domains have their DNS services outsourced to someone else like UltraDNS, whose systems are more than enough to withstand most DDOS attacks. > But it doesn't end there. I am going to explore other ideas, such as use > "VRFY" option, which many systems disable but it can be tested, and other > ideas such as maybe using a new EHLO keyword: XSAP > Use of VRFY should be done with caution, many systems may turn it off and a good reasond to do so, from RFC 2821: "7.3 VRFY, EXPN, and Security As discussed in section 3.5, individual sites may want to disable either or both of VRFY or EXPN for security reasons. " From RFC 2505: "2.11. SMTP VRFY and EXPN Both SMTP VRFY and EXPN provide means for a potential spammer to test whether the addresses on his list are valid (VRFY) and even get more addresses (EXPN). Therefore, the MTA SHOULD control who is is allowed to issue these commands. This may be "on/off" or it may use access lists similar to those mentioned previously. Note that the "VRFY" command is required according to RFC821, [1]. The response can, though, be "252 Argument not checked" to represent "off" or blocked via an access list. This should be the default. Default for the "EXPN" command should be "off". " ALSO, please do not take my comments as an attack on your approach, rather I think that what is missing here, is the fact that your approach is not 100% compliant with the standards. If you are proposing to change the standards, that's fine but I think that should be made clear. However, in my opinion as you are proposing it now, this proposal is not in compliance with existing email standards since it requires the receiving domains to answer 252 upon RCPT TO to valid addresses only. That is not a current requirement, and blacklisting Yahoo and others for doing that is incorrect. I think that we need to evaluate the current SMTP model first to see how many holes there are, and THEN see what we can do about them. Since can help to put things in perspective better. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my tongue." (MIT's 404 Message) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:26:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09958 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL1x-00063I-Rm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6Q59k023258 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL1x-000633-Nq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:05 -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 BAA09944 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL1u-00014j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL1u-00014g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL1u-0005zK-9S; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL1K-0005wg-5d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:25:26 -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 BAA09941 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL14-00014d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:25:10 -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 1AQL14-00014Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:25:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500C2BJ4FZA@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:24:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <1031130044419.ZM29124@candle.brasslantern.com> To: Bart Schaefer Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC98D12.1010408@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <005601c3b6ee$858feea0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <1031130044419.ZM29124@candle.brasslantern.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, 30 Nov 2003 01:24:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Nov 30, 4:03am, Dag Kihlman wrote: > } > } I think blacklists and classifications could go hand in hand. Mail clients > } could be connected to blacklist servers and be part in a voting system. When > } I delete a mail I will have two buttons [Delete] and [Delete spam] and the > } later takes part in the voting system. > > The trouble with this is that people soon stop using it properly. > > It's fairly clear from the behavior of AOL's "TOS Notification" system > that users who are provided with a [Delete spam] button will begin to > treat it as a "quick unsubscribe" and cast a spam vote for all sorts of > things, e.g. just because they've changed their mind about receiving it. > That is one of the reasons why SpamCop has false positives at certain times. See (http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/357.html): "f my IP is listed, does it mean I am a spammer or my ISP hosts spammers? Not necessarily. The SCBL aims to list IP addresses only involved in the source or unauthorized relay of spam. The statistics that the SCBL relies on are generated by reports from fallible humans, and unfortunately innocent parties that have not sent any spam sometimes get listed." Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:28:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10079 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL3q-0006Ga-PK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6S2Sa024082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL3q-0006GL-Cj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:02 -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 BAA10030 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL3n-00016M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:27:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL3m-00016J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:27:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL3p-0006Ad-2m; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL2r-00067J-Fm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:27:01 -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 BAA09977 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL2o-00015M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:58 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL2n-00015J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:57 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU6QwGU000897; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:58 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAU6QwhC020837; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:58 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6QwxL020835; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:58 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Hector Santos , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Message-ID: <20031130062658.GA20829@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> <3FC98634.90106@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC98634.90106@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 01:26:58 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > Alan Dekok has previously volunteered to write up a document going > through the entire SMTP model as it is today, and pointing out every > single section of it which is currently being exploited by spammers. The > next logical step would be checking which points in the model can be > adjusted and tightened to reduce spam. I will give Alan's draft careful and (constructively) critical attention. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:29:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10208 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL4p-0006SY-2C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6T3np024824 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL4o-0006RR-Mt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:02 -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 BAA10160 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL4l-00019j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL4l-00019g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL4n-0006L6-1p; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQL4Y-0006Ie-5o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:48 -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 BAA10106 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQL4U-00018O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:42 -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 1AQL4U-000176-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:42 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500F36JAWV0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:28:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Alan DeKok , ASRG Message-id: <3FC98DF8.3040704@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 01:28:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>Yakov wrote: >>And also, what is your definition of a "false positive"? > > > As a mail transport/gateway designer, I am basing the design on technical > comformity. Hence, a false positiive is restricting what is otherwise a > legit client connecting into the system to deliver mail. > There is nothing in the current IETF email standards that requires (1) the sender's system to operate a valid MTA that responds to RCPT TOs for the email account that is sending the email, and (2) must not accept RCPT TOs to *any* address at its domain. For example, some domain owners use "catch alls" also to accept all incomings, which is perfectly legit, OR ISPs such as Yahoo that are doing this to stop harvesting and dictionary attacks. > > You should concentrate your efforts on technical conformity of the specs. > No solution will solve the spammer problem 100% and you will be beating a > dead horse trying to look for one. In my view, your only option is to make > conformity in the future SMTP functional specification a requirement with > server-implementation backward compatibility. That has nothing to do with > DNS, Mail Filters, SPAM vs NO SPAM, BULK vs NON-BULK, non-server vs server > based MTA clients, etc. > What I would like to do, is to go through the SMTP model step by step, analyzing loopholes, and see what can be tightened and improved. Then from there we can figure out which proposals can work. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:42:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10562 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLHT-0007Z5-0G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6g6te029073 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLHS-0007Yq-SK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:06 -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 BAA10542 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLHP-0001Kk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLHP-0001Kh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLHN-0007Ub-Ag; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLGp-0007U3-96 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:41:27 -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 BAA10492 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLGm-0001Jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:41:24 -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 1AQLGl-0001Jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:41:23 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500FSAJVXV0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:40:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions In-reply-to: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Anti-Spam Message-id: <3FC990EA.50605@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 01:40:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > > Suggestions: > > SMTP guidelines may suggest server implementations performing IP connection > filtering should provide a SMTP rejection response at the greeting, > HELO/EHLO or the RCPT TO: state points rather than passively dropping the > connection to help reduce continue attack by "dumb spammer software." > Good material for a new BCP overhauling RFC 2505. Anybody wants to volunteer to help with this document? > > Suggestion: > > Obviously, the HELO/EHLO is probably the first of the most importantly state > point where technical compliance must be followed to help address the > illegal entries. There are few proposals on this subject of HELO/EHLO DNS > lookup validations. > > I would like to suggest that the SMTP specs be changed to suggest that a > bracket IP address be used in all cases for all MTA clients. > > This will allow for a quick non-DNS comparison against the IP connect > address. There is no need to provide a FQDN. However, it does, it must > match the connecting IP address. This is something that surely can be looked into, however what's the point of the HELO command in the first place if all it will do is state the IP address that is connecting? You know what that address is anyway. Therefore, before recommending this, we must find out *why* was the HELO command put in place in the first place. RFC 2502 recommends the use of FQDN: "When we suggest use of FQDNs rather than IP addresses this is because FQDNs are intuitively much easier to use." > > Legacy clients will be handled by defined the SMTP server implementation. > My only suggestion here is that the SMTP puts it in writing that SMTP server > are NOT required to support old non-compliance software. This needs to be looked into more, backwards compatability cannot be easily ignored. > However, with WCSAP implemented, Caller ID verification now provides an > even higher rejection rate, nearly making RBL obsolete. This might suggest > that the RBL databases, I am using BL.SPAMCOP.NET, is doing an excellent > job verifiable with return path validation logic. As per my other message, many RBLs are not reliable enough and do have false positive. My ISPs recently started using SpamCop and I received an email from a list member via a third party that was bounced because of that. The use of multiple RBLs or some other guidelines might be needed. > > > The open relay checks works great! However, it is problematic with > YAHOO.COM which is inherently for all intent and purpose an OPEN RELAY site! > I have my RejectOpenRelaySite option enabled in WCSAP, so sorry YAHOO, fix > your system. Your system is NOT helping the internet email problem! I > put more weight on an open relay site being a spam site. > As per my other message, why is this an open relay if it does not relay email to outside domains? Plus what about domains that have "catch all" turned on? Also, I do not think that *anyone* can afford to deny email from Yahoo, AOL, MSN, etc. who collectively have an extremely large number of users. They will not care that your customers are not getting their email, and it would be *your* customers who will care. > > If there is one possible SMTP command to add to the specs, it would be this > idea: > > non-server based MTA clients (local machine clients) use: > > MAIL FROM: <> > > server based MTA clients use: > > RETURN PATH: <> > > This will give server software to decide if they want to VALIDATE the > return path or not against DNS mx records. There is an IETF SUBMIT protocol which is recommended to be used for local clients instead of SMTP, which makes this point moot. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:47:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10639 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLMH-0007zn-Fg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6l5J7030729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLMH-0007zY-7L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:05 -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 BAA10629 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLMD-0001P9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLMD-0001P6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLMC-0007tp-2E; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLLk-0007tR-Cs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:32 -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 BAA10623 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLLh-0001N7-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:29 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLLg-0001N4-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:28 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:50 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2409275906; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:49 -0500 Message-ID: <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:46:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Side note; Why do we cc direct users when we writing to the mailing list too? Just wondering. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Matthew Elvey" ; Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > > In your definition of an open relay is a server that is allowed to say > "250" to every RCPT TO command for a *local* domain! There is *nothing* > in ANY RFC that states that an SMTP server is not allowed to do that. > Therefore, your definition is inconsistent with the existing standards > since you are expecting SMTP servers to do something that is not in the > specs. Please my mail better Yakov. I am perfectly aware the SMTP server may accept RCPT TO: without validation for local domains. Geez, been designing SMTP ready software for quite a years now and it ranks among the best. So give me a break, huh? Our software also offers a [X] Validate Local User option as well. When off, the validation is delayed until the gateway mail processor gets a hold of the mail. However, it must be delivered or a bounce notification is immediately sent back. That is the difference! It can go into LA-LA land. You stated YAHOO is accept all RCTP TO: to avoid "harvesting," which is not quite the case as I will show. What I had stated is that If YAHOO is accepted ALL addresses, including accepting the open relay test against a totally random email domain, then it is an OPEN RELAY: Anyway, lets test to see if YAHOO will send a BOUNCE notification to a fake address but with a proper MAIL FROM: address. OK, notice this transaction: 220 YSmtp mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com ESMTP service ready HELO LOCALHOST 250 mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com MAIL FROM: 250 sender ok RCPT TO: 550 relaying denied for RCPT TO: 250 recipient ok DATA 354 go ahead THIS IS A BOUNCE TEST TO SEE IF YAHOO WILL BOUNCE THE MAIL BACK TO WINSERVER.SUPPORT@WINSERVER.COM . 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (asdasdas@yaho o.com) [-5] - mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com quit 221 mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com Ok, so you were not quite right about Yahoo yourself.. They are not addressing the harvesting problem. But instead delaying the user validation handling until the DATA point is receive. You either offer a dynamic ACCEPT/REJECT or a delay BOUNCE, which many systems do to offload processing issues. YAHOO is doing Local User validation by delaying the process until the data is received, which is probably done as a backend thread lookup while the session thread was being receiving data. Perfectly legit design to help in the optimization process. Nonethless, Yakov. This is good News! This make WCSAP even better. I will now add this logic by detected the YAHOO MTA and go the DATA state. This will make WCSAP stronger now and work with YAHOO. I am going to explore the other ISP as well to see if they also do delayed validation at the DATA state. Thanks YAKOV! --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 01:59:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10950 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLXu-0000Pl-7R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU6x6It001587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLXu-0000PW-3k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:06 -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 BAA10917 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLXq-0001Wh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLXq-0001We-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLXp-0000NB-2u; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLXC-0000MF-D1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:22 -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 BAA10862 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLX8-0001Vj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:18 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLX8-0001Vf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:18 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:36 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2409982062; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:36 -0500 Message-ID: <011b01c3b70f$611e1620$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> <3FC98634.90106@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > Alan Dekok has previously volunteered to write up a document going > through the entire SMTP model as it is today, and pointing out every > single section of it which is currently being exploited by spammers. The > next logical step would be checking which points in the model can be > adjusted and tightened to reduce spam. Thank you. That's all I been saying. Remember think! connect ---> validate helo/eho --> validate mail from --> validate rcpt to:---> validate data---> validate quit Once you do this (properly) you will come to the logical technical conclusions (I hope). By way, what mail server has Alan written? never mind, doesn't matter. Have you seen my stats and analysis? Do you have any questions about it? --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 02:03:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14557 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLbs-0000t0-5Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU73B63003167 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLbp-0000ow-CN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:09 -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 CAA13976 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLbl-0001aV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLbl-0001aS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLbi-0000jY-1V; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLba-0000hX-JJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:54 -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 CAA13718 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLbW-0001aO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:51 -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 1AQLbW-0001aF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:50 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500JTYKSN2Q@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:00:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 02:00:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > Side note; Why do we cc direct users when we writing to the mailing list > too? Just wondering. That argument has been raised many times. Some people filter the main list traffic into a different folded unless it is also addressed to them directly. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yakov Shafranovich" > >>In your definition of an open relay is a server that is allowed to say >>"250" to every RCPT TO command for a *local* domain! There is *nothing* >>in ANY RFC that states that an SMTP server is not allowed to do that. >>Therefore, your definition is inconsistent with the existing standards >>since you are expecting SMTP servers to do something that is not in the >>specs. > > [..] > > Ok, so you were not quite right about Yahoo yourself.. They are not > addressing the harvesting problem. But instead delaying the user validation > handling until the DATA point is receive. You either offer a dynamic > ACCEPT/REJECT or a delay BOUNCE, which many systems do to offload processing > issues. > I believe that it has been mentioned before that the reason why they do it that way, is because spammers tend to do dictionary attacks using RCPT TO. > YAHOO is doing Local User validation by delaying the process until the data > is received, which is probably done as a backend thread lookup while the > session thread was being receiving data. Perfectly legit design to help in > the optimization process. > Correct. > Nonethless, Yakov. This is good News! This make WCSAP even better. I will > now add this logic by detected the YAHOO MTA and go the DATA state. This > will make WCSAP stronger now and work with YAHOO. I am going to explore the > other ISP as well to see if they also do delayed validation at the DATA > state. > What happens if this is a legit user? You will end up sending an email to him since at the DATA command, the MTA will accept the message? So therefore, for those MTAs which answer 250 to all RCPT TOs and do validation after the DATA command, your method of verification will result in an extra email message to the user which itself can be considered spam by the user (same argument as the C/R business). What I would like to narrow down is what purpose does this proposal address? What exact forgery does it solve? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 02:04:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15524 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLcm-00015i-MM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU748Fq004188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLcm-00015T-4V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:08 -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 CAA15004 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLci-0001aw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLci-0001at-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLce-00011l-Qh; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLcD-00010y-7p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:33 -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 CAA14395 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLc9-0001ai-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:29 -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 1AQLc9-0001aR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:03:29 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500FMQKWQTT@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:03:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <011b01c3b70f$611e1620$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Cc: Alan DeKok Message-id: <3FC9961B.2000109@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130040524.GA13185@thyrsus.com> <3FC98634.90106@solidmatrix.com> <011b01c3b70f$611e1620$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>Alan Dekok has previously volunteered to write up a document going >>through the entire SMTP model as it is today, and pointing out every >>single section of it which is currently being exploited by spammers. The >>next logical step would be checking which points in the model can be >>adjusted and tightened to reduce spam. > > > Thank you. That's all I been saying. > > Remember think! > > connect ---> validate > helo/eho --> validate > mail from --> validate > rcpt to:---> validate > data---> validate > quit > > Once you do this (properly) you will come to the logical technical > conclusions (I hope). > Ok, I think we'll all be waiting for his document very eagerly. Hopefully he can provide a status update and perhaps let us know if he needs more help. > Have you seen my stats and analysis? Do you have any questions about it? > My only concerns with the stats is that there is really no sure way to find out if any legimitate email was rejected through your process since you do not actually possess the actual piece of email. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 02:19:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA23966 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLrY-00038r-Nq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU7JOls012075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLrX-00038g-Eq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:23 -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 CAA23918 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLrT-0001kK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLrT-0001kH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLrB-00035q-0e; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLr7-00035V-Q1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:18:57 -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 CAA23875 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLr4-0001k7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:18:54 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLr3-0001k4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:18:53 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:12 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2411217546; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:11 -0500 Message-ID: <012c01c3b712$419712e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98B87.50309@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > > Doesn't this apply to any approach? A DNS based solution can also be > > overloaded just as well. > > > > DNS lookups are *much* more lightweight than SMTP sessions. According to > RFC 1035, DNS queries can be done over UDP, with a limit of 512 bytes > per query, with the usual ones much smaller than that. This has two > advantages - very low transfer size, and also the usage of UDP does not > require an acknowledgement to be sent back unlike TCP, reducing traffic. With the good DNS system, UPD is the first approach. However, it has provisions to switch to a TCP stream connection if UDP fails. > Also, DNS information tends to be cached all over the Internet. Thats the only good thing about it. :-) In either case, that doesn't stop it from being overwhelmed. > ALSO, please do not take my comments as an attack on your approach, > rather I think that what is missing here, is the fact that your approach > is not 100% compliant with the standards. I don't think you are correct. Everything I do is 100% compliant. Everything else you stated is not worth even acknowledging. Its nonsense. PS: Do me a favor, quit dumping the RFC on me. If you want to refer to an section, please do. But I know what the specifications are backwards and forwards with real compliant products in the market place. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 02:28:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24296 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM0B-0004De-PY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU7SJcX016197 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM0A-0004Cc-PA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:18 -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 CAA24285 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM06-0001pM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM06-0001pJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLzw-00045O-8R; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:28:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQLzH-0003xG-Cb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:27:23 -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 CAA24272 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQLzD-0001oQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:27:19 -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 1AQLzD-0001o5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:27:19 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP50000VLXWX4@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:25:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <012c01c3b712$419712e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FC99B50.8000302@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98B87.50309@solidmatrix.com> <012c01c3b712$419712e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 02:25:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > From: "Yakov Shafranovich" [..] >>ALSO, please do not take my comments as an attack on your approach, >>rather I think that what is missing here, is the fact that your approach >>is not 100% compliant with the standards. > > > I don't think you are correct. Everything I do is 100% compliant. > Everything else you stated is not worth even acknowledging. Its nonsense. > You're are expecting the sender's system to operate a valid MTA that is connected to the Internet at the time of the incoming SMTP transaction from the sender and responds to an RCPT TO command for that sender. This is not a requirement in any current standard. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 02:33:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24439 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM59-0004iF-W4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU7XR7h018115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM58-0004i6-GF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:26 -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 CAA24416 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM54-000223-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM54-000220-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM4j-0004de-K5; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQM3y-0004ZD-1A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:21 -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 CAA24397 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:31:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM3u-00021u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:10 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQM3t-00021r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:09 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:29 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2412015359; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:29 -0500 Message-ID: <013a01c3b714$1d2b1ee0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Alan DeKok" , "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC934C0.9090409@solidmatrix.com> <004c01c3b6f4$fbd54780$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98DF8.3040704@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:32:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Alan DeKok" ; "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > There is nothing in the current IETF email standards that requires (1) > the sender's system to operate a valid MTA that responds to RCPT TOs for > the email account that is sending the email, and (2) must not accept > RCPT TOs to *any* address at its domain. For example, some domain owners > use "catch alls" also to accept all incomings, which is perfectly legit, > OR ISPs such as Yahoo that are doing this to stop harvesting and > dictionary attacks. Yakov, they are delaying the validation until the DATA state. They are probably using pareto's principle that suggest that most of their spammers are TOO stupid to change their SMTP software to intepret that DATA results. > What I would like to do, is to go through the SMTP model step by step, > analyzing loopholes, and see what can be tightened and improved. Then > from there we can figure out which proposals can work. hope to see a good job. I'm available for technical review. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:18:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25211 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQMmR-0007rX-8J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8IB9E030223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQMmQ-0007rO-R8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:10 -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 DAA25193 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQMmO-0002RS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQMmO-0002RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQMmH-0007p7-LL; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQMlI-0007nM-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:17:00 -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 DAA25155 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQMlG-0002Ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:16:58 -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 1AQMlF-0002OI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:16:57 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5003COO8WXC@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:15:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC9A6FE.3080209@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 03:14:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O I wanted to start this thread to discuss different methods of authentication in email. All of these simply prove that the sender is authentic increasing traceability and reducing forgery, they do not stop spam by themselves. However, they force spammers into a corner, where they can be dealt with easier. It seems to me that we have the following (this will hopefully become a draft): 1. Verifying that the sending IP address is a legit MTA. PROBLEM: Spammers use hacked or virus infected machines to send spam. SOLUTION: Allow the owner of the IP address to indicate that this specific address cannot be used for sending email. EXAMPLES: MTA Mark, centralized white lists for IP addresses (carrot and stick), digital certificates, ISSUES: Many users are not necessarily the real IP address owners. Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. DNS-based solutions have security issues. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Having a spammer friendly ISP, hacking DNS servers, cache poisoning. Use a hacked computer that is legit. 2. Verifying that the sending IP address has permission to send email for the domain that it used in HELO and MAIL FROM commands. PROBLEM: Spammers tend to use return addresses of other valid domains in order for their email to appear legitimate OR on purpose in order to cause problems to the domain owner ("joe-job"). SOLUTION: Allow the owner of the domain, or a trusted third part to specify which IP addresses are authorized to send email for that domain. EXAMPLES: LMAP, DRIP, digital signatures and certificates, manual white listing ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. DNS-based solutions have security issues. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Owning their own domains. Stealing someone else's DNS, cache poisoning. Use a hacked computer that is legit. 3. Verifying that the sender's email address used in MAIL FROM is valid. PROBLEM: Many times the spammers forge the originator's email address in order to avoid bounces, to avoid detection, or for "joe-jobbing". SOLUTION: Have the sender's MTA or the sender himself verify his validity, use a centralized system for verification. EXAMPLES: C/R and CRI, RCPT TO callback, digital signatures ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Existing MTAs tend not to cooperate with callbacks. Users do not want to answer C/R challenges. Anonymous email is killed. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Using someone else's valid email address, use their own domains that answer "yes" to all callbacks and C/R challenges. 4. Verifying that the sender actually sent this specific email message. PROBLEM: Many times the spammers forge the originator's email address in order to avoid bounces, to avoid detection, or for "joe-jobbing". SOLUTION: Have the sender's MTA or MUA verify that the sender actually sent the message in question. Have the sender digital sign each message or provide an e-postage token in each message, with verification via a centralized system EXAMPLES: CRI, MSG-TRACK, digital signatures, e-postage ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Existing MTAs have no support for this ability. This increases traffic and opens a possibility for DDOS attacks. Anonymous email is killed. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Operating their own email server, steal someone else's account or falsely register in a centralized database. Use a hacked computer that is legit. 5. Verifying that the sender is actually human and not a machine. PROBLEM: The inherent issue with email is that it is generated by machines which can pump out bulk email very fast. SOLUTION: Force senders to verify their "humanity" every so often OR for every message, or use a centralized system. SOLUTIONS: C/R and CRI with Turing tests, digital signatures and e-postage ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Turing tests do not work for disabled. This increases traffic and opens a possibility for DDOS attacks. Anonymous email is killed. Users do not like go through verification. Mailing lists have big problems. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Hire cheap humans (developed countries) or tricks humans (free porn sites with Turing tests). Develop software to go around Turing tests. Steal someone else's account or falsely register in a centralized database. 6. Verifying that the sender is a legit human, and not a spammer. PROBLEM: Even verifying that the sender is human does not mean he is not a spammer. SOLUTION: Use a reputation system or a centralized database. SOLUTIONS: Digital signatures and certificates, "Internet license" ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Steal someone else's account or falsely register in a centralized database. Use a hacked computer. Comments? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:38:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25451 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQN5q-0000zC-Mi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8cEm8003778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQN5p-0000yp-7M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:13 -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 DAA25443 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQN5m-0002a5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQN5m-0002a2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQN5e-0000uE-7I; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQN5F-0000ki-1K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:37 -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 DAA25431 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQN5C-0002ZQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:34 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQN5B-0002ZN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:33 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:53 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2415937421; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:51 -0500 Message-ID: <015301c3b71d$3f1e70c0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "Anti-Spam" References: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC990EA.50605@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:37:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > HELO/EHLO > > This is something that surely can be looked into, however what's the > point of the HELO command in the first place if all it will do is state > the IP address that is connecting? You know what that address is anyway. > Therefore, before recommending this, we must find out *why* was the HELO > command put in place in the first place. For logging and the matching the IP, but legacy server misconfigurations makes this prohibitives. read below. > RFC 2502 recommends the use of FQDN: > > "When we suggest use of FQDNs rather than IP addresses this is because > FQDNs are intuitively much easier to use." Legacy concept for TTY operations We are in the high speed, high demand automation world. Its one less lookup per million request is a tremendous saving. Yes, the need for HELO is probably not required, especially where EHLO is available to provide extended capabilities. The basic design is to use for servers to use the greeting to indentify an ESMTP (Extended SMTP) system. Not reliable though so system who issue an EHLO first are required to fallback to HELO. The SMTP specs should exploit this wonderful flexibility to the maximum extent. For example, make HELO optional forcing compliancy with EHLO extensions. What I mean is that you need to give designer, software product the leverage to offer advance security in compliance with the extended standards. The last thing I want to happen is offer something that is NOT compliant and have some smoe sue it for tortious interference because we stopped his email from spamming a site. Again, I would like to stress the importance for the "new" standards to offer technical comformity options. My GUI configuration for the Mail server may say: ---- Extended SMTP support ---- [X] Support HELO [X] Validate Client Domain [X] Strict Address Literal etc, etc. You must allow me to do this!! Not that you can't stop me from offering and I already offer strict extended smtp options, but I take pride in RFC compliance. Its a selling point. We don't tell me "We are 99.99% compliant!" We have this now: [X] Extended SMTP Authentication [ ] Required for all connections (All users must log in) [ ] MAIL FROM must be local domain (Intranets, closed) Anyway, once upon a time, we use the HELO/EHLO client doman for DNS lookups to validate the IP against the connection IP. Technically, I believe the specs says this is want the desire was, however, legacy server do not allow this to work. Many systems use load balancing or "smart smtp" servers, servers to receive and others to send. What we saw is that many of these setups do not configure their DNS requires correctly, so it was very unreliable to validate the domain. The logic was disabled. So the suggestion is to "reinforce" the idea that server implementations may now begin to offer strict connecting IP checking with the client domain in the HELO/EHLO state. I mean, look at it now when there is mismatch: 230 Hello YYYYYY, why do you call yourself XXXXXX? whats up with that? If the server saw something is not right, give it the power to do something about it! > > > > Legacy clients will be handled by defined the SMTP server implementation. > > My only suggestion here is that the SMTP puts it in writing that SMTP server > > are NOT required to support old non-compliance software. > > This needs to be looked into more, backwards compatability cannot be > easily ignored. Oh I agree. I for once will offer backward compatibility. But I need to offer strong connectivity too without someone (I will keep nameless) make a claim my software is non-conformant and worst, allow this non-conformity be used as evidence in a legal suit. :-) > As per my other message, many RBLs are not reliable enough and do have > false positive. My ISPs recently started using SpamCop and I received an > email from a list member via a third party that was bounced because of > that. The use of multiple RBLs or some other guidelines might be needed. Well, in my view, RBLS are a major contributor to the spam problem. I will say that it isn't a coincidence the that grow of spam is directly proportional with the growth of RBL databases. Why? Because if I wanted to become a bulk spammer tomorrow, in just 1 hour of operation, I can produce a list of thousands of open relays and open proxies that are recorded in the databases. I already proven this hypothesis with real hard core results. I downloaded the RBL database with over 2 million or so entries and I wrote a program to double check which entires were FIXED or still open for abuse. I found on large percentage of the blacklisted sites were stilll open in the first 30 days of being reported. Over time the systems were fixed, but it took awhile. In other words, the RBL is a double-edge sword beause it also gives SPAMMER information that would normally take weeks or more to gather in just 5 minutes! However, I am in agreement that is everyone used it then it doesn't matter what open relay site information is exposed. Until that happens, its a great source of open relay sites. So in my technical, if we can get away from RBL and similar systems, the better! I believe the commercial RBL sites make it different to get their databases, but the freebies one are also good. > > The open relay checks works great! However, it is problematic with > > YAHOO.COM which is inherently for all intent and purpose an OPEN RELAY site! > > I have my RejectOpenRelaySite option enabled in WCSAP, so sorry YAHOO, fix > > your system. Your system is NOT helping the internet email problem! I > > put more weight on an open relay site being a spam site. > > > > As per my other message, why is this an open relay if it does not relay > email to outside domains? Plus what about domains that have "catch all" > turned on? I think we resolved this now. Specifically YAHOO is delaying the validation until the DATA state. Initially, I didn't think so and with your harvesting reason, I took it that is how it was. In that mode, it is an open relay unless it bounces the message. Independent of performance issues, delaying validation increases the problem. We must remember spammers are in the volume business of selling email addressss ! The more than can say "Hey this system accepts this address, therefore it is valid" the better the marketing is for them when they are selling their services to companies. They can give a flying hoot what the content of the mail is. In the mail is accepted, that a problem. But then again, I am not proposing that we (SMTP) get involved in the complicated mail analysis business. All it can do is help the process using strict technical specs. > Also, I do not think that *anyone* can afford to deny email from Yahoo, > AOL, MSN, etc. who collectively have an extremely large number of users. > They will not care that your customers are not getting their email, and > it would be *your* customers who will care. I agree, but early on I personally announced for my own accounts to filter all JUNO accounts. Lots of people followed suit and auto-magically spams was reduced My only point, they have to comply like everyone else. However, right, there is no issue now with YAHOO. They have a delayed validation which I will add to WCSAP. Solved :-) > > If there is one possible SMTP command to add to the specs, it would be this > > idea: > > > > non-server based MTA clients (local machine clients) use: > > > > MAIL FROM: <> > > > > server based MTA clients use: > > > > RETURN PATH: <> > > > > This will give server software to decide if they want to VALIDATE the > > return path or not against DNS mx records. > > There is an IETF SUBMIT protocol which is recommended to be used for > local clients instead of SMTP, which makes this point moot. do you have something I can read? Thanks Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:43:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25513 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNAl-0001fs-1E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8hIr2006430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNAk-0001fd-CN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:18 -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 DAA25507 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNAh-0002bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNAh-0002bI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNAU-0001bh-BM; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNAI-0001TP-AO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:42:50 -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 DAA25503 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNAF-0002b9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:42:47 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNAF-0002b6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:42:47 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:08 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2416254281; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:08 -0500 Message-ID: <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:43:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "ASRG" > What happens if this is a legit user? You will end up sending an email > to him since at the DATA command, the MTA will accept the message? So > therefore, for those MTAs which answer 250 to all RCPT TOs and do > validation after the DATA command, your method of verification will > result in an extra email message to the user which itself can be > considered spam by the user (same argument as the C/R business). arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Good point. I having looked into yet. Busy writing mail. I'll explore it. Is YAHOO around????? > > What I would like to narrow down is what purpose does this proposal > address? What exact forgery does it solve? Valid Return Path. The RFC says that all mail must be returnable (except for NULL address). --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:51:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25711 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNIN-00024g-12 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8pAou007974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNIL-00024U-Vt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:10 -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 DAA25705 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNIJ-0002i6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNII-0002i3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNID-0001xX-UC; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNHL-0001ss-2z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:07 -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 DAA25690 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNHI-0002hm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:04 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNHI-0002hj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:04 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:25 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2416689890; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:23 -0500 Message-ID: <016801c3b71e$ffa9b600$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98B87.50309@solidmatrix.com> <012c01c3b712$419712e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99B50.8000302@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > > You're are expecting the sender's system to operate a valid MTA that is > connected to the Internet at the time of the incoming SMTP transaction > from the sender and responds to an RCPT TO command for that sender. This > is not a requirement in any current standard. > I believe I already mention that WCSAP issues a 4xx code for down connections. If the remote MTA is down, a 4xx code is provide which tells the sender to TRY again later. If he is not following this, then the sender is non-compliant. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:52:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25743 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNJN-0002HS-Si for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8qDP1008758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNJM-0002H7-Ad for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:12 -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 DAA25729 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNJJ-0002iT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNJJ-0002iQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNJC-0002Aq-9W; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:52:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNIF-0001yY-9t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:03 -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 DAA25702 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNIC-0002i0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:00 -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 1AQNIC-0002hr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:51:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP5006YMPUG8C@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:49:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General: Some smtp statistics, analsys and suggestions In-reply-to: <015301c3b71d$3f1e70c0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Anti-Spam Message-id: <3FC9AF18.6090806@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <003901c3b6f2$5fddd420$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC990EA.50605@solidmatrix.com> <015301c3b71d$3f1e70c0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 03:49:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>>If there is one possible SMTP command to add to the specs, it would be > > this > >>>idea: >>> >>>non-server based MTA clients (local machine clients) use: >>> >>> MAIL FROM: <> >>> >> > server based MTA clients use: >> > >> > RETURN PATH: <> >> > >> > This will give server software to decide if they want to VALIDATE the >> > return path or not against DNS mx records. >> >>There is an IETF SUBMIT protocol which is recommended to be used for >>local clients instead of SMTP, which makes this point moot. > > do you have something I can read? > RFC 2476, HTMLized copy here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 03:59:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25973 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNQA-0002my-76 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU8xEda010719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNQ9-0002lL-62 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:13 -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 DAA25941 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNQ6-0002o2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNQ6-0002nz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNPx-0002iw-Lo; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNPk-0002iS-S3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:48 -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 DAA25926 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNPi-0002nP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:46 -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 1AQNPh-0002mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:45 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500HOPQ91QC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:58:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <016801c3b71e$ffa9b600$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC9B121.9040500@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <008b01c3b701$5a9c2a20$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98B87.50309@solidmatrix.com> <012c01c3b712$419712e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99B50.8000302@solidmatrix.com> <016801c3b71e$ffa9b600$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 03:58:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: >>You're are expecting the sender's system to operate a valid MTA that is >>connected to the Internet at the time of the incoming SMTP transaction >>from the sender and responds to an RCPT TO command for that sender. This >>is not a requirement in any current standard. >> > > > I believe I already mention that WCSAP issues a 4xx code for down > connections. > That I got. My question is about the fact that you are requiring every sender to have an MTA with a RCPT TO - a valid return path. See my other message. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 04:01:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26049 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNRz-00031Q-Ff for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU917UD011610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNRy-00031B-Dt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:06 -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 EAA26034 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNRv-0002pG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNRv-0002pD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNRu-0002ts-QT; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNRd-0002tF-Sp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:45 -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 EAA26029 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNRb-0002p5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:43 -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 1AQNRa-0002ou-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:42 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-177.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.199.75]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP500HW6QCAQC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:00:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 04:00:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > From: "Yakov Shafranovich" [...] >>What I would like to narrow down is what purpose does this proposal >>address? What exact forgery does it solve? > > > Valid Return Path. > > The RFC says that all mail must be returnable (except for NULL address). > Ok, I believe we have narrowed it down :) Thanks for bearing with us folks :) So what we are addressing is the valid return path. The current standards allow for invalid return addresses, which is the one of the root problems that led to spam. This has a side-effect of allowing anonymous email (which can still survive if the anonymous email server uses its own email address for MAIL FROM). That I believe is our point of contention, and I would be more than happy to see the exact section which requires all mail to be returnable. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 04:07:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26118 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNXw-0003Hu-LX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU97Fmf012626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNXp-0003HQ-BY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:09 -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 EAA26102 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNXm-0002sU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNXm-0002sR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNXi-0003Cx-KE; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNXD-0003CJ-NW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:06:31 -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 EAA26099 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNXA-0002sF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:06:28 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNXA-0002sC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:06:28 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQNXB-0006jy-S4; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:06:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) To: "Bill Cole" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:06:29 +0000 Status: O > At 12:16 PM +0000 11/29/03, Jon Kyme wrote: > >What exactly is the specific failing of SMTP which is addressed by pull > >systems? > > > >Have I missed something? > > > SMTP for RFC822-format mail is essentially the only 'push' system in > wide use on the net where data is sent to individual end users > without requiring their prior consent. Yet for historical reasons, it > operates on a source-trusted model. Traditionally, none of the source > identification data in RFC822 mail or used in SMTP are authenticated > in any way, but rather they are accepted no matter what they are. In > the case of the HELO argument it is even unwise to do basic sanity > checks because misuse is so widespread among legitimate senders: > unless the sending side claims an unambiguous identity which the > receiving system knows as its own, refusing mail based on a > validation failure will result in some legitimate mail being > rejected. Being a push system makes email more subject to spamming > than 'pull' systems, and the historical ways that Internet email has > been run without any sort of sender validation have led to even > non-spam using mechanisms that break any serious attempt at sender > authentication. > Yes, alright, don't go on... lack of sender validation. OK, now fix sender validation (see the many proposals to this end). What's wrong with SMTP? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 04:29:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26480 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNtA-00066S-3A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU9TBKd023456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNt8-00066F-P9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:10 -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 EAA26460 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNt5-00033i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNt5-00033f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNsz-000642-JC; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNsg-00063c-5a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:42 -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 EAA26451 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNsd-00033T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:39 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNsc-00033Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:38 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:29:00 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2419005500; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:59 -0500 Message-ID: <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:28:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- > >>What I would like to narrow down is what purpose does this proposal > >>address? What exact forgery does it solve? > > > > Valid Return Path. > > > > The RFC says that all mail must be returnable (except for NULL address). > > > > Ok, I believe we have narrowed it down :) Thanks for bearing with us > folks :) > > So what we are addressing is the valid return path. The current > standards allow for invalid return addresses, which is the one of the > root problems that led to spam. This has a side-effect of allowing > anonymous email (which can still survive if the anonymous email server > uses its own email address for MAIL FROM). That I believe is our point > of contention, and I would be more than happy to see the exact section > which requires all mail to be returnable. See RFC 2821 section 6, second paragraph: "If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). " Thats pretty straight forward to me. If a return path MUST be available to delivery of failure notifications, then it can only be accomplish with a valid return path. Therefore, it is only logical that a valid return path is provided in the first place in the event a delivery failure notification is required. Incidentally, section 7.1 last paragraph is obsolete and inconsistance with the rest of the specs. Needs to be moved if you wish to move on with your efforts. "This specification does not further address the authentication issues associated with SMTP other than to advocate that useful functionality not be disabled in the hope of providing some small margin of protection against an ignorant user who is trying to fake mail." Obviously, "small margin" is now LARGE and "an ignorant user" is now "an ignorant industry" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 04:34:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26584 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNxw-0006jy-Tf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAU9Y88p025904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNxw-0006jS-8V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:08 -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 EAA26578 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNxt-00037V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNxs-00037S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNxq-0006cY-NT; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:34:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQNxR-0006Wy-Lq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:33:37 -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 EAA26575 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:33:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNxO-00037N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:33:34 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQNxO-00037K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:33:34 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AQNxO-0000oZ-5G; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:33:34 +0000 Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "John R Levine" , From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.9.0] 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:33:34 +0000 Status: O >> > I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam >labelling >> > standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that >> > don't accept spam. >> >> What does this mean? > > >If you don't know, it means you should go do your homework so you have >some familiarity with the past five years of anti-spam work. Sheesh. > Please don't be so fast to "sheesh" until you've *read* the message you're replying to. I'd be grateful if you'd address the serious concern I expressed. To avoid misunderstanding I'll quote it here: What does this mean? I have users who wish to receive commercial email that they haven't explicitly solicited. Does this mean I should have UCE PLEASE in my banners? I have other users who are more normal, so should I have NO UCE (FOR THE MOST PART) in my banners? Or what? This proposition is contrary to the recipient-consent basis that this group is chartered on. I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by one of the co-chairs. To clarify, I'm well aware of the history of suggestions regarding "NO UCE" (etc) expressions in MTA banners. My concern is that these can have very little to do with enabling individual recipient consent. I'm more concerned that John doesn't seem to appreciate this - I would have expected him to familiarise himself with the direction of the group. I'm also concerned that he chooses to reply in this hasty manner. I'm sure he'll be happy to reconsider. Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 06:04:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27991 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPN8-0003yX-9h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUB4EO7015277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPN8-0003yK-2z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:14 -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 GAA27971 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPN4-0003ud-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPN4-0003ua-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPMv-0003w4-GD; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPMp-0003vt-NJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:03:56 -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 GAA27968 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPMl-0003uX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:03:51 -0500 Received: from smtp14.fre.skanova.net ([195.67.227.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPMl-0003uU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:03:51 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp14.fre.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAUB3pMS017333; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001501c3b731$a569ca00$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: Cc: 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Some opposition against a pull system is not really well founded. 1. "People are mobile - a pull system is slow!" No, not at all. When you have a telephone modem the delays are caused by viruses, attached documents and so forth. In a pull system only the notifications are pushed and they will be less than say 200 characters long. If you are concerned about mail on mobile equipment - pull is the solution for you! Chris wants his mail server to do the pulling. I think it could be an option if you work in an organization where a lot of data is sent. 2. "Blacklists tend to run at the whim of the blacklist owner" Well, Chris! What is the problem with that? I would not subscribe to the "young boys with motorbikes' blacklist", but I guess young boys with motorbikes will love it. I would subscribe to the Swedish University Network blacklist and whitelist. I guess that will not be interesting to you since you are interested in Australian sewing machines. A blacklist can actually be made using your classification idea. Have you thought about that? ;-) 3. "People will misuse the [Delete spam] button casting a vote "spammer" on innocent people and organizations." True. But the [Delete spam] button is the way for a user to instruct the program to delete notifications from that address. I do not suggest that everyone should be included in a voting system. But there are organizations contain people who can use the classification system and use the [Delete spam] button properly. Perhaps the Swedish University Network (SUNET) would find it a good idea to implement a voting system, a blacklist and a whitelist. If SUNET does impement a blacklist and a whitelist it is up to me if I am happy subscribing to it. If you think blacklists is a lousy idea - fine! Do not use them but let me use them! 4. "Spammers will lie about their classification" True. But if some organizations blacklist spammers it is better for them to be honest. That is why Chris needs blacklists even if he does not like them! The main advantages with a pull system, as I see it, is: 1) to allow pull servers only on static IP addresses where the owners have asked for the ports to be opened. This way spammers will find it really hard to find unprotected computers. 2) the mail client will coopererate with the notification server making virus and spam mails visible allowing the user to remove them. 3) it will be an excellent choice for mobile equipment. 4) it will make it easier to construct blacklists 5) it will makie it easier to enforce a mail classification system _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 06:27:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA28423 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPjH-0005NB-9N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUBR7lj020647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPjH-0005Mw-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:07 -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 GAA28416 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:26:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPjD-00046e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPjC-00046b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPjA-0005JB-R0; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:27:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQPib-0005Iw-OF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:26:25 -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 GAA28413 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:26:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPiX-00046R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:26:21 -0500 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQPiX-00046O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:26:21 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp10.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAUBQL95029243 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:26:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:26:24 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O "Alan DeKok" wrote: >"Dag Kihlman" wrote: >> The failing of SMTP is that it allows the sender to cheat or lie. Any >> authentication in SMTP is just authentication in an academic sense. In >> reality spammers will hack even more than today and send using fully >> authenticated mail servers. > Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer >behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just >as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. > The benefits of a pull system are different. It allows recipients >to do things like wait 12 hours to pick up mail from unknown senders, >at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP, and >thus can't send the spam. Why on earth should computers with dynamic IP addresses be allowed to host mail in a pull system??? My suggestion was that all traffic to the pull server ports are forbidden to dynamic IP addresses. The ISP:s must enforce this rule or they will be cut off too. >at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP No, no, no!!! Do not trust on that! In theory I have a dynamic IP-address. In reality it has not changed for three months. Several of my friends experience the same thing. Your suggestion makes mine and tens of thousands similar cable modem machines honey pots for spammers. With my suggestion they are uninteresting. The fewer the honey pots are the more costly it will be to find them and the fewer the spammers will be. If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market will make this fee reasonable) When I say spammers can not lie in a pull system I mean they must be honest about their IP-address. Any other honesty is unfortunately not possible on the Internet. /DK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 11:10:13 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04114 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQU8w-0005oH-Ou for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUG9suL022334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQU8w-0005o9-IP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:54 -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 LAA04103 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQU8t-0006s6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQU8t-0006s2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQU85-0005jo-EC; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQU7N-0005jW-9P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:08:17 -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 LAA04079 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQU7K-0006qA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:08:14 -0500 Received: from [200.140.134.134] (helo=BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQU7J-0006pY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:08:14 -0500 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 hAUG7bEW000547 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:07:42 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.2.157]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2003113014141676:10983 ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:14:16 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031130140316.01c32da0@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 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2003 14:14:17, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2003 14:14:22, Serialize complete at 30/11/2003 14:14:22 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_6850570==.ALT" Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Guts of spammers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:04:54 -0200 Status: O --=====================_6850570==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Just for your amusement. I received the following on another anti-spam mailing list. This is a perfect example of a bot gone mad ;) >From: "Vanessa Lintner" >Subject: http://spamconference.org >To: ideas@spamconference.org > > > >Hello, > >I have visited spamconference.org and noticed that your website is not >listed on some search engines. I am sure that through our service the >number of people who visit your website will definitely increase. >SeekerCenter is a unique technology >that instantly submits your website to over 500,000 search engines and >directories -- a really low-cost and effective way to advertise your site. >For more details please go to >SeekerCenter.net. > >Give your website maximum exposure today! >Looking forward to hearing from you. > >Best Regards, >Vanessa Lintner >Sales & Marketing >www.SeekerCenter.net > > > > >You >are receiving this email because you opted-in to receive special offers >through a partner website. If you feel that you received this email in >error or do not wish to receive additional special offers, please enter >your email address here and click the button of "Remove Me": --=====================_6850570==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Just for your amusement. I received the following on another anti-spam mailing list. This is a perfect example of a bot gone mad ;)

From: "Vanessa Lintner" <reply@seekercenter.net>
Subject: http://spamconference.org
To: ideas@spamconference.org

 

Hello,

I have visited spamconference.org and noticed that your website is not listed on some search engines. I am sure that through our service the number of people who visit your website will definitely increase. SeekerCenter is a unique technology that instantly submits your website to over 500,000 search engines and directories -- a really low-cost and effective way to advertise your site. For more details please go to SeekerCenter.net.

Give your website maximum exposure today!
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,
Vanessa Lintner
Sales & Marketing
www.SeekerCenter.net

     
     
 
You are receiving this email because you opted-in to receive special offers through a partner website. If you feel that you received this email in error or do not wish to receive additional special offers, please enter your email address here and click the button of "Remove Me":
--=====================_6850570==.ALT-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 11:15:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04233 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUE1-00067F-JJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUGF9F2023503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUE1-000670-DX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:09 -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 LAA04208 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:14:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUE0-0006xl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUE0-0006xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUDu-000639-DH; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUD7-00062g-Id for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:14:13 -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 LAA04188 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUD6-0006wo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:14:12 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUD5-0006wA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:14:12 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20031130161335014007e8pne>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:13:35 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.106]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA7A18685; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:19:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA1743.90607@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dag Kihlman Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) References: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:13:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Dag Kihlman wrote: > "Alan DeKok" wrote: > > >>"Dag Kihlman" wrote: >> >>>The failing of SMTP is that it allows the sender to cheat or lie. Any >>>authentication in SMTP is just authentication in an academic sense. In >>>reality spammers will hack even more than today and send using fully >>>authenticated mail servers. > > >> Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer >>behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just >>as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. > > >> The benefits of a pull system are different. It allows recipients >>to do things like wait 12 hours to pick up mail from unknown senders, >>at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP, and >>thus can't send the spam. > > > Why on earth should computers with dynamic IP addresses be allowed to host > mail in a pull system??? My suggestion was that all traffic to the pull > server ports are forbidden to dynamic IP addresses. The ISP:s must enforce > this rule or they will be cut off too. > > >>at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP > > No, no, no!!! Do not trust on that! In theory I have a dynamic IP-address. > In reality it has not changed for three months. Several of my friends > experience the same thing. Your suggestion makes mine and tens of thousands > similar cable modem machines honey pots for spammers. With my suggestion > they are uninteresting. The fewer the honey pots are the more costly it will > be to find them and the fewer the spammers will be. I too have, in theory, a dynamic IP address. Mine hasn't changed in even longer. I also host a legitimate email server for a domain. However, my MTA doesn't make direct connections to recipient MTAs, but instead use Comcast's 'smart host', which relays any mail for anyone on their network, because many large providers (notably AOL) subscribe to the DSBL and other similar lists. How does this setup relate to pull systems? Would I now be responsible for my own pull server? Or would major service providers still have to block supposedly dynamic addresses because the ISPs hosting them aren't following the rules you stated? My point is, in order for this idea of pull servers only being hosted on machines that should be hosting them, you need complete buyin from ISPs, who have little motivation not to get their netblocks blacklisted, because that's actually less administrative work for them than maintaining their own blocks. The only way to push them towards compliance is to use the tactics used by the MAPS blacklist, which intentionally caused collateral damage to get attention. > If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP > address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market will make > this fee reasonable) If I want to install a legitimate MTA, I can do it for free, right now. Nothing prevents me from sending mail using whatever email address I legitimately have except for hackneyed blocking measures in place across the Internet. If I own a domain, I can set up A and MX records for my server, but those don't tell the recipient that my server is authorized to send mail for the domain. LMAP and MTAMark together achieve this, without a fee, and without bringing in the worse-than-useless ISP 'support' staff. > When I say spammers can not lie in a pull system I mean they must be honest > about their IP-address. Any other honesty is unfortunately not possible on > the Internet. Under your pull system, there is no benefit to receivers until every ISP turns on your blocking or gets blacklisted. Until then, there will be quite a mess. There will always be non-compliant sites and service providers. Your proposal doesn't deal with that issue any better than SMTP does currently. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 11:46:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04674 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUi1-0007m6-1j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUGk9QG029880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUi0-0007lr-Sh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:08 -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 LAA04659 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUhz-0007a1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUhz-0007Zy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUhu-0007je-1L; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUhT-0007iy-Dr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:39 -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 LAA04639 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUhQ-0007Yy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:32 -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 1AQUhK-0007Yo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:45:26 -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 1AQUnB-0004wK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:29 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:58:36 EST." <011b01c3b70f$611e1620$60c6d344@FAMILY> 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, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:29 -0500 Status: O "Hector Santos" wrote: > Remember think! > > connect ---> validate ... These checks are like firewall rules: they stop bad traffic, but do nothing to prevent such traffic in the first place. I believe that there are minor modifications to deployment of SMTP which may have a significant affect on the UBE problem. The modifications are more on the order of changing our assumptions about how the mail system "should" be used, rather than adding filter rules. > By way, what mail server has Alan written? never mind, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I'm not interested in how SMTP server are written, and it's irrelevant to the problem at hand. I'm interested in the assumptions in the programmers mind, which is very different... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 11:50:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04744 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUlo-00085a-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUGo4xJ031088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUlo-00085L-2b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:04 -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 LAA04734 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUlm-0007hE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUlm-0007hA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUlm-00082z-DS; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUl2-0007w1-TD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:49:16 -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 LAA04718 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUl1-0007g8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:49:15 -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 1AQUl1-0007g5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:49:15 -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 1AQUqz-0004wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:55:25 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:02:51 EST." <3FC9961B.2000109@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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:55:25 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Ok, I think we'll all be waiting for his document very eagerly. > Hopefully he can provide a status update and perhaps let us know if he > needs more help. More help would be appreciated. I've got an outline, and a "todo" list. What would help is people willing to root through the details of protocol X (RSS, HTTP, IRC, etc.), and describe how it differs from SMTP (using the outline of SMTP's issues). People willing to contribute, please email me off-list. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 11:52:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04802 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUnj-0008EQ-PT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUGq3Xx031636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUnj-0008EB-Lf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:03 -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 LAA04790 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUni-0007jr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUni-0007jo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUnh-0008Bl-FS; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUmv-0008BG-Na for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:13 -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 LAA04766 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUmu-0007iZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:12 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUmt-0007iV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:51:12 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAUGpAl02871 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:51:10 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Nov 30, 4:28am) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:51:10 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 4:28am, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- (Yakov) } } > > The RFC says that all mail must be returnable (except for NULL address). } > } > [...] I would be more than happy to see the exact section } > which requires all mail to be returnable. } } See RFC 2821 section 6, second paragraph: } } "If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the } receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This } notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the } envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address } from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). " } } Thats pretty straight forward to me. That's a requirement that the receiving server send the delivery failure. It is not a requirement that the original sender accept it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 12:01:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04967 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUwf-0000Ie-OW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUH1HQV001146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUwf-0000IP-Ke for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:17 -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 MAA04958 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUwe-000080-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUwe-00007w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUwU-0000Bs-74; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:01:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUvV-00007J-S0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:00:05 -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 LAA04916 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUvU-00006Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:00:04 -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 1AQUvT-00006R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:00:04 -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 1AQV1R-0004x8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:06:13 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:26:24 +0100." <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> 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, 30 Nov 2003 12:06:13 -0500 Status: O "Dag Kihlman" wrote: > Why on earth should computers with dynamic IP addresses be allowed to host > mail in a pull system??? Ah. You're not just advocating a pull system, you're advocating a bunch of other changes to messaging deployment and use. That makes it significantly harder to convince anyone to use any new system. For the record, minor changes to SMTP deployment can also deny messages which come from a dynamic IP. See DUL lists. There's no need for a pull system to implement such restrictions. I'd advise you to take your list of restrictions, and see how they can be applied to SMTP, before advocating a pull system. You'll probably see that a pull system isn't necessary. > Your suggestion makes mine and tens of thousands similar cable modem > machines honey pots for spammers. With my suggestion they are > uninteresting. Huh? I suggested no such thing. And I don't see how the recipient can tell that the message is from a machine with a dynamic IP, unless it's told somehow. That information can then also be applied to SMTP, making a pull system irrelevant. > If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP > address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market will make > this fee reasonable) Ah... so you're not advocating a technical change, then. You're advocating some kind of social/legal solution, and you see technical changes as the best way of making that social/legal solution more applicable to the real world. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 12:04:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05055 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUzL-0000dj-9Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUH43PC002453 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUzL-0000dU-5g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:03 -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 MAA05029 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUzJ-0000DZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUzJ-0000DV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUzJ-0000bE-Gs; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQUyS-0000a6-AG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:08 -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 MAA05020 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUyR-0000CG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:07 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQUyP-0000C8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:06 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAUH35C02896 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:03:05 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification" (Nov 30, 12:51am) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:05 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 12:51am, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- } From: "Bart Schaefer" } To: "ASRG" } > } > Suppose a large ISP were to adopt the "caller ID" scheme (one } > already may have, see below). A spammer forges winserver.com MAIL } > FROM: on a couple of million messages destined for that ISP, } > distributed across all its dozens of MXs. They all begin connecting } > to your MX to ID the caller. Are you prepared to handle that load, } > or have you just been DoS'd into oblivion? } } I was thinking more about this when it dawn on me, this is non-issue. } } This is already controlled by server access and availability. You're missing the point. You might believe it's a non-issue for you, but that doesn't make it a non-issue for everyone who might become a victim of it. Recommending an approach such as your caller-ID technique is irresponsible, because it can lead to indirect abuse of innocent third parties. } This is already controlled by server access and availability. The number } of receiver threads are definable by the sysop with a server 421 greeting } response of: } } 421 domain, Service not available. Try again later How is this a non-issue? ALL of your mail is going to stop flowing with this error until such time as the flood of caller-ID connections stops. And assuming the hypothetical ISP in the example does wait and try again, you'll have those interruptions repeatedly until all the forged messages drain out of the ISP's queues. This leads to a further question (of academic interest only, really): You have said that your system returns a 4xx to the sender when the caller-ID callback is unable to connect. What does it do when the callback gets a 4xx response itself? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 12:51:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06338 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQVj4-0003Vb-BI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUHpIqI013481 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQVj4-0003VM-7F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:18 -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 MAA06281 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQVj2-00017T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:16 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQVj2-00017P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQViy-0006dO-So for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQVio-0003RG-Jt; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQVif-0003Qv-2i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:50:53 -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 MAA06270 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQVid-00016q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:50:51 -0500 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQVic-00016m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:50:50 -0500 Received: from Klokburken2 (h15n1fls24o1051.bredband.comhem.se [217.211.90.15]) by smtp10.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hAUHom95018114; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001901c3b76a$7f6a38b0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "Philip Miller" Cc: References: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <3FCA1743.90607@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "Dag Kihlman" Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > Under your pull system, there is no benefit to receivers until every ISP > turns on your blocking or gets blacklisted. Until then, there will be quite > a mess. There will always be non-compliant sites and service providers. Your > proposal doesn't deal with that issue any better than SMTP does currently. > I would say the mess is here today. Filters remove perfectly honest mails and let spam pass. As long as anyone can hack someone else's computer any verification system can be put out of business. Since the sender never can be 100% verified in a push system I suggest a pull system where the sending server is always 100% verified. It is not authenticated, it is not certified, it is not blessed by the pope but if the mail body is not on that server the spammer is really really stupid. On top of this 100% verification of the sending server you can add blacklists, whitelists, classifications. Probably people will blacklist like mad but that is really up to the individual. ICQ is a system where the user can blacklist everyone else but the persons on the contactlist. This does not mean ICQ does not work. It works splendidly. People are able to communicate and maintain a blacklist at the same time. They can do it and they will do it better than automated servers. Sure you can have blacklists in push as well, but allowing spammers to push is really making them a service: they are able to hit and run leaving virtually no trace on the hacked machine. In my system I will see if spammers or viruses are using my credentials to send mail and I am able to stop them. If my ISP has not blocked the ports to a pull server on my machine some blacklists will discover that a lot of spam is comming from my ISP and block everything from the ISP. Sure this is causing damage but to quote Rambo: they made first blood! ;-) /DK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 13:12:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07169 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQW3E-00056C-02 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUIC743019594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQW3D-00055x-RN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:07 -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 NAA07156 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQW3B-0001dF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQW3B-0001dC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQW37-00053S-IJ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQW2s-00050y-92 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:46 -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 NAA07148 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQW2q-0001cr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:44 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQW2p-0001cn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:43 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: 26/XCMbQwZ7qhgaaZk1llQ 1070215901 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3886345231A; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:11:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) References: In-Reply-To: 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:11:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Perhaps a better alternative to deprecating <> would be saying that MTAs SHOULD bitbucket DSNs about email they know (thanks to LMTP and/or Received/MessageID headers) weren't sent from authorized IPs/systems. Good/workable idea? On 11/29/2003 5:32 PM, Bill Cole sent forth electrons to convey: > At 11:41 AM -0800 11/29/03, Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> ... IMO, MAIL FROM: <> needs to be deprecated in favor of refusal >> during SMTP. > > The null sender for system-generated messages about system-level > issues should NOT be deprecated without providing some solution for > everything that it is currently useful for. Bounces are just one > variation on the broader theme of DSN's. True. By deprecated, I mean a spec that says that MTAs SHOULD not (not MUST not) use <>. Let's see if there is another solution for everything legit that it's currently useful for. We don't want <> to be a way around LMTP, right? For any failure DSN, I think the systems that send them can and should be modified so that all the failure status codes of rfc 1893 can be provided during SMTP. Any intermediate system (offline UUCP excepted) that does so would need to be redesigned, as you point out below, if they wanted to avoid using <>. For any success DSNs, perhaps they shouldn't be sent MAIL FROM: <>. Locally generated and delivered mail shouldn't be bitbucketed. > >> There is no compelling reason to delay the mail validation process. > > > Whether that is true really depends on how narrowly you want to view > the email world. If you want to ordain that all mailable domains must > have the full knowledge of their namespace in every host that they > have an MX record pointing at, this is a very tall order for changes > from how a significant fraction of the net works today. > >> It provides no benefit that cannot be met with immediate >> validation, barring the super-secure bastion host scenario Bill Cole >> mentions, which could be resolved with some work. (I should admit - I >> don't do what I preach, as the provider I choose to have host my >> domain does accept spam that I'd prefer it refuse during SMTP, but I >> have pushed them to fix the problem, and they do refuse a good >> fraction of the spam during SMTP.) > > > That example was ONE case. Thanks for providing more for discussion. > Without delaying the validation of the target address, every domain in > which there are mail addresses would need published MX records > pointing to machines with live access to the authoritative knowledge > store for each domain it serves. We could kiss UUCP goodbye finally, > and if you think no one still uses it you are quite wrong. Valid point. (except we're deprecating, not forbidding) > Large organizations that now have single external faces on their mail > systems for many possible subdomains which actually route internally > in complex ways would need to be redesigned. As an example of this, I > work with a major systems vendor with a global workforce whose > individual email addresses reflect their geographic location, yet the > exterior MX record set for all of the subdomains is one server farm. > That server farm has to know how to route mail to many different > subdomains handled on many different machines around the world. It > DOES NOT have access to the full user namespace for all of those > domains, it merely knows that it accepts mail for the various > subdomains and hands it off internally to machines closer to the HR > departments for the various branches. Even without exposed subdomains, > such situations are problematic because companies beyond a certain > size simply do not operate as single entities and cannot operate their > email systems on single giant machines that know everything > simultaneously. An intermediate system has 10 minutes after the end-of-data indicator to contact the downstream system and find out if it will accept the message; it could be redesigned to do so before sending the final 250 OK. Do you think the idea in the first line of this email is more workable? > The fact of an address no longer being valid can easily take a day to > propagate throughout a global operation, and it is a rare large > company that can make the event of a user add or delete look > instantaneous to their entire email system. > >> I forget whether SpamAssassin supports what we're currently calling >> CallerID Verification. It has NO_DNS_FOR_FROM: Domain in From header >> has no MX or A DNS records, but I think it doesn't have the full >> CallerID Verification. > > > I admit to having only skimmed the stuff on 'CallerID' because it > looks like the same unscaleable stuff that has been in in some MTA's > for a while with essentially tries a RCPT verification of every MAIL > FROM given, and there are probably enough of us managing mail servers > who will address that sort of behavior as just another attack (null > route the offending machine) so that the inherent scaling and indirect > attack problems don't ever make it to visibility. It would rarely look like an (address harvesting) attack, I think. Hector still has to address someone (?Yakov's?) point that he isn't/can't provide accurate false positive data if he's rejecting mail after MAIL FROM! Hector? Until then, it's only a useful tool for a scoring system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 13:42:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07884 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWWF-0006dE-Lm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUIg7GL025489 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWWF-0006d2-EA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:07 -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 NAA07789 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWWD-0002Ce-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWWC-0002Cb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:42:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWW9-0006Z1-7j; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQWVZ-0006YL-Us for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:28 -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 NAA07750 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWVX-0002B1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:23 -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 1AQWVX-00028n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:23 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP600EGMH7YED@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:40:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <200312010420.19290.famous-asrg@nutters.org> To: Brett Watson Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FCA39AB.9010803@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200312010420.19290.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Re: ASRG mailing list suggestion Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 13:40:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hi, I am going to discuss your request with John. Until then, please let the other "pull" guys know that this discussion should continue off-list. Yakov Brett Watson wrote: > Yakov, > > There's a lot of unproductive back-and-forth about "pull systems" on the ASRG > list right noe, in which most of the advocates think such things are the > bee's knees, most of the sceptics think it's pointless, and most of the > concepts being discussed aren't even properly shared between the opposing > camps. Consequence: many words, and no progress. > > I submit that a sub-group be formed with the specific charter of analysing > various delivery mechanisms (pull versus push), and determine what their pros > and cons are. Even if the only benefit this move has is to get the existing > noise off the main list, it will have been well worth while. > > Regards, > TFBW > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 13:47:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08055 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWb1-000766-Gl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUIl3CF027276 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWb1-00075r-Bm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:03 -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 NAA08045 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWaz-0002NV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWay-0002NR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:47:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWaz-00073V-Qb; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQWaJ-00073E-2T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:19 -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 NAA08018 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWaG-0002M8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:16 -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 1AQWaG-0002KV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP600ESMHG6ED@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:45:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: ASRG mailing list suggestion In-reply-to: <3FCA39AB.9010803@solidmatrix.com> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCA3AD6.7090009@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200312010420.19290.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <3FCA39AB.9010803@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, 30 Nov 2003 13:45:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O This message was sent to the list by accident, please ignore it. Yakov Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Hi, > > I am going to discuss your request with John. Until then, please let the > other "pull" guys know that this discussion should continue off-list. > > Yakov > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:00:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08518 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWnj-0007kN-Qi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJ0BRQ029773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWnj-0007k8-Mf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:11 -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 NAA08491 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWnh-0002ld-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWnh-0002la-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWnc-0007hX-OX; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:00:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWnB-0007gQ-Ck for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:37 -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 NAA08464 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWn9-0002kE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:35 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWn8-0002kA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:34 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip200-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.200]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F87A36B6F for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:41 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031130185940.GA2696@m433> References: <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:59:41 -0500 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:43:08AM -0500, Hector Santos wrote > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yakov Shafranovich" > To: "ASRG" > > > What happens if this is a legit user? You will end up sending an email > > to him since at the DATA command, the MTA will accept the message? So > > therefore, for those MTAs which answer 250 to all RCPT TOs and do > > validation after the DATA command, your method of verification will > > result in an extra email message to the user which itself can be > > considered spam by the user (same argument as the C/R business). > > arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Good point. I having looked into yet. Busy > writing mail. Ever heard of the expressions "deadly embrace" or "vicious circle" or "mail loop" ? Assume that machine A, which uses your system, tries to send to machine B, which also uses your system. What protection is there to prevent such problems ? Secondly... what exactly does your system do that "identd" hasn't been doing for the past 30 years ? -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:08:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08805 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWvP-00008s-Bg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJ87KG000540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWvO-00008V-Rg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:06 -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 OAA08784 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWvM-00030y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWvM-00030v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWvK-0008WG-84; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQWub-0008Dw-LU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:07:17 -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 OAA08747 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWuZ-0002yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:07:15 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.85.27] helo=zardoc.esmtp.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQWuY-0002xo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FC936E801; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:07:57 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hAUJ7v0q003048 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:07:57 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031130190757.GA13230@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:07:57 -0800 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Matthew Elvey wrote: > True. By deprecated, I mean a spec that says that MTAs SHOULD not (not > MUST not) use <>. Let's see if there is another solution for > everything legit that it's currently useful for. We don't want <> to be > a way around LMTP, right? For any failure DSN, I think the systems LMTP? > that send them can and should be modified so that all the failure status > codes of rfc 1893 can be provided during SMTP. Any intermediate system > (offline UUCP excepted) that does so would need to be redesigned, as you > point out below, if they wanted to avoid using <>. For any success > DSNs, perhaps they shouldn't be sent MAIL FROM: <>. Locally generated > and delivered mail shouldn't be bitbucketed. What about systems that are temporarily offline? Do you want to get rid of queueing? Reminds me of the X.500 mailsystem we had: "the system is currently unavailable, try again later" whenever it encountered a problem... requiring the user to do the queueing (and retrying) is a really bad idea. > An intermediate system has 10 minutes after the end-of-data indicator to Some systems (esp. MUAs) don't wait 10 minutes. PS: there are better ways to deal with MAIL From:<> e.g., keep track of mails you sent and only accept DSNs for those. This doesn't break anything in contrast to the proposals that are coming up here again and again without considering why DSNs are necessary and why <> has been chosen as sender address. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:21:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09348 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQX86-0000kn-BY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJLELx002891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQX86-0000kY-6O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:14 -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 OAA09338 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQX83-0003PL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQX83-0003PI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQX7u-0000iB-FR; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQX7i-0000hm-QH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:50 -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 OAA09324 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQX7g-0003Od-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:48 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQX7f-0003Oa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:20:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781AF4AA75; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:20:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16483-01-9; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:20:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528A34AA7E; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:20:44 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id CB143F3280; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:20:43 -0600 (CST) To: Matthew Elvey Cc: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> Message-ID: Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p5 at rice.edu Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 30 Nov 2003 13:20:43 -0600 Status: O On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:11:39 -0800, Matthew Elvey writes: > Perhaps a better alternative to deprecating <> would be saying that > MTAs SHOULD bitbucket DSNs about email they know (thanks to LMTP > and/or Received/MessageID headers) weren't sent from authorized > IPs/systems. Good/workable idea? Probably, if the burden of proof is low and relatively easy. > True. By deprecated, I mean a spec that says that MTAs SHOULD not > (not MUST not) use <>. Let's see if there is another solution for > everything legit that it's currently useful for. We don't want <> to > be a way around LMTP, right? For any failure DSN, I think the > systems that send them can and should be modified so that all the > failure status codes of rfc 1893 can be provided during SMTP. Any > intermediate system (offline UUCP excepted) that does so would need to > be redesigned, as you point out below, if they wanted to avoid using > <>. For any success DSNs, perhaps they shouldn't be sent MAIL FROM: > <>. Locally generated and delivered mail shouldn't be bitbucketed. > This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. AFAIK, DSN's are for exceptional conditions. IE, in a well functioning system, all messages get delivered and no DSN's need to be sent. Right now we have a mis-functioning system where people send messages with forged sending addresses, thus the DSN's are a DoS on the person having their email address forged. Especially if they cannot be programattically filtered. But, perhaps they could? How to do it is all sending systems attach a nonce (a random number) to an email. All DSN's must include a nonce indicating to what this is a response to. Users have the option to filter based on whether a correct nonce is attached. If a mailserver is changed to implement LMTP, it can be changed to also implement the nonce scheme at the same time. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:29:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09916 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXFh-0001Lr-0y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJT4Ko005189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXFg-0001Lb-TB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:04 -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 OAA09910 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXFe-0003iT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXFd-0003iQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXFd-0001Hm-KD; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXEx-0001GW-RI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:19 -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 OAA09867 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXEu-0003hI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:17 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXEu-0003hE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:16 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:34 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2454979203; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:33 -0500 Message-ID: <002b01c3b778$28046100$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG list" References: <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130185940.GA2696@m433> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Dnes" To: "ASRG list" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > Ever heard of the expressions "deadly embrace" or "vicious circle" or > "mail loop" ? Assume that machine A, which uses your system, tries to > send to machine B, which also uses your system. Ever heard of "Paper hat?" > What protection is there to prevent such problems ? Null Address > Secondly... what exactly does your system do that "identd" hasn't been > doing for the past 30 years ? Apple and oranges. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:33:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10093 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXJZ-0001eT-Pr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJX5N1006343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXJZ-0001eE-Jp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:05 -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 OAA10051 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXJX-0003px-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXJW-0003pu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXJV-0001aL-FF; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXJN-0001Zs-EX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:32:53 -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 OAA10030 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXJK-0003pK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:32:50 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.85.27] helo=zardoc.esmtp.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXJK-0003oF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:32:50 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FC936EB01; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:33:33 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hAUJXXJk018241 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:33:33 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031130193333.GA23244@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:33:33 -0800 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote: > How to do it is all sending systems attach a nonce (a random number) > to an email. All DSN's must include a nonce indicating to what this is > a response to. Users have the option to filter based on whether a > correct nonce is attached. There's no need to invent something new. Use the Message-Id: header. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:38:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10357 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXOS-0002N0-7Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJc8qv009104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXOS-0002Ml-1r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:08 -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 OAA10298 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXOP-0003z2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXOP-0003yz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXOM-0002Am-Vg; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXNg-0001od-6D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:20 -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 OAA10252 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXNd-0003wf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:17 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXNc-0003wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:17 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:36 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2455522125; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:36 -0500 Message-ID: <003101c3b779$6ba8b450$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> <20031130190757.GA13230@zardoc.esmtp.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:37:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Claus Assmann" To: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > > What about systems that are temporarily offline? Do you want to get > rid of queueing? Reminds me of the X.500 mailsystem we had: "the > system is currently unavailable, try again later" whenever it > encountered a problem... requiring the user to do the queueing (and > retrying) is a really bad idea. Claus, Queuing design is par for the course. All software need to be queue ready and all of them (worth their salt) are. Otherwise you do expect the target to be online at the time, which is unrealistic. Also, it may not be that its down, but maybe reached capacity. Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:52:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10721 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXc0-0002t5-LR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJq8rO011093 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXc0-0002sq-GI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:08 -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 OAA10718 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXbx-0004JE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXbx-0004JB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXbt-0002qY-V6; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXba-0002qI-1w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:51:42 -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 OAA10710 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXbX-0004J1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:51:39 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.85.27] helo=zardoc.esmtp.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXbW-0004Ii-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:51:38 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FC936EE01; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:22 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hAUJqM80029925 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:22 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031130195222.GA29792@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> <20031130190757.GA13230@zardoc.esmtp.org> <003101c3b779$6ba8b450$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <003101c3b779$6ba8b450$60c6d344@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:52:22 -0800 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Hector Santos wrote: > Queuing design is par for the course. All software need to be queue ready > and all of them (worth their salt) are. Otherwise you do expect the target ... Good to hear you agree. Therefore this kills the proposal to not use DSNs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 14:57:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10818 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXgo-0003Ei-6F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUJv6C0012434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXgo-0003ET-1J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:06 -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 OAA10812 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXgl-0004Lg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXgk-0004Ld-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXgi-0003Ak-C9; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXgL-0003AT-O9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:39 -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 OAA10803 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXgI-0004LY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:34 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXgI-0004LU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:34 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DB3B0980 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:56:29 -0500 Status: O At 1:20 PM -0600 11/30/03, Scott A Crosby imposed structure on a stream of electrons, yielding: >AFAIK, DSN's are for exceptional conditions. IE, in a well functioning >system, all messages get delivered and no DSN's need to be sent. No. DSN's are Delivery Status Notifications, not just bounces. See RFC1891 and RFC3461. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:07:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11450 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXqj-0003zc-S5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUK7LsC015339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXqf-0003zK-KO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:17 -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 PAA11394 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXqc-0004ak-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXqc-0004ah-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXqQ-0003uc-I7; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXq7-0003uA-MH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:06:43 -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 PAA11341 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXq4-0004aF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:06:40 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXq4-0004aB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:06:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC494AC0B; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:06:39 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17127-02-74; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:06:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642DE4A9BE; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:06:38 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 06137F3280; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:06:37 -0600 (CST) To: Claus Assmann Cc: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> <20031130193333.GA23244@zardoc.esmtp.org> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <20031130193333.GA23244@zardoc.esmtp.org> Message-ID: Lines: 35 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p5 at rice.edu Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 30 Nov 2003 14:06:37 -0600 Status: O On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:33:33 -0800, Claus Assmann writes: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > How to do it is all sending systems attach a nonce (a random number) > > to an email. All DSN's must include a nonce indicating to what this is > > a response to. Users have the option to filter based on whether a > > correct nonce is attached. > > There's no need to invent something new. Use the Message-Id: header. Not quite. This would be something added on by the email server, and it doesn't need to be unique among all messages and all senders. By using cryptography, for instance encoding a counter and a MAC over just the counter, the mechanism can be made *MUCH* cheaper than recording the message ID's of all sent messages. With this implementation, the sender doesn't need to record the nonces on all outgoing emails. They can accept a DSN, read the counter and verify its MAC, and accept the DSN only if the counter is both fresh (less than 10 days old) and has been used at most 5 times. Storage for the server is one MAC key, one counter, and a list of all DSN's accepted for delivery in the last 10 days. Depending on the disclosure or abuse risks of DSN's, (which I don't fully understand) this could be simplified. We remove the list of accepted DSN's. This means that a given counter may now be attached to an unlimited number of times in a 10 day period. In exchange the server now only needs to store two things, a counter and a MAC key. Scott [*] A MAC is a keyed cryptographic hash. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:14:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12093 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXxN-0004du-S9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKEDXH017840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXxN-0004df-N5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:13 -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 PAA12038 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXxM-0004iS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXxM-0004iP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXxB-0004bR-Bx; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQXwY-0004bB-Tt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:22 -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 PAA11966 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXwX-0004ha-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:21 -0500 Received: from omail2.getactive.com ([65.160.234.152]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQXwW-0004h3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 31658 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2003 20:12:50 -0000 Received: from map1.getactive.com (192.168.17.121) by omail2.getactive.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2003 20:12:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 16271 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2003 20:12:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO getactive.com) (208.252.198.66) by map1.getactive.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2003 20:12:49 -0000 Message-ID: <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> From: Bill Pease 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: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS References: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:11:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O >Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass >mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from >under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing >will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore >thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal >usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. To recommend that "legitimate communities of interest" abandon their current communication practices and switch to a distribution mechanism that has virtually no market penetration seems as extreme to me as attempting to redesign SMTP from the ground up to cure the spam problem. RSS feeds have a long way to go before legitimate email publishers (such as all of my company's clients - member-based organizations like AFL-CIO, Public Broadcasting System, American Red Cross - would be willing to abandon push email for pull news aggregators. In summary: Audience Reach Limits: *RSS readers have very limited market penetration (<5%), requiring installation of additional software into email client, browser or desktop Feature Limits: *Limited to no support for graphically-enhanced content *Limited support for variety of content types typical in newsletter publishing *No support for content customization or personalization based on subscriber attributes *Limited support for tracking subscriber interaction with content *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email (e.g., donation, viral marketing). See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1963664 http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3070851 http://rss.lockergnome.com/archives/services/007074.phtml http://rss.lockergnome.com/archives/opinion/006902.phtml for some balanced discussions within the email publishers world about the potential advantages/disadvantages of RSS as a distribution channel. -- Bill Pease, Ph.D. Chief Technology Officer GetActive Software 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 600 Berkeley, CA 94705 p: 510-540-4772 x101 f: 510-540-4163 e: bill@getactive.com w: http://getactive.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:18:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12414 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY1D-0004vb-28 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKIBPb018937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY1C-0004vM-UQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:10 -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 PAA12399 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY1A-0004qI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY19-0004qD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQY12-0004nf-Us; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQY0g-0004kh-Tx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -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 PAA12381 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY0f-0004pY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:37 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY0f-0004pU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:37 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:59 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2457943578; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: <005401c3b77f$0f1e27f0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Ok, I think we'll all be waiting for his document very eagerly. > > Hopefully he can provide a status update and perhaps let us know if he > > needs more help. > > More help would be appreciated. I've got an outline, and a "todo" > list. What would help is people willing to root through the details > of protocol X (RSS, HTTP, IRC, etc.), and describe how it differs from > SMTP (using the outline of SMTP's issues). People willing to > contribute, please email me off-list. > Hmmmmmmmm, I don't see why you would want to to confuse the issue with RSS, HTTP, IRC, etc? Look, unless you are going to fund the development efforts for vendors to change their software, you are not going to define how they will REVAMP their current systems. Thats the bottom line. The problem is the SMTP specification. Don't confuse it with anything else. You need to highlight its problems, and then make it technical feasible for developers to create solutions in the spirit of Mr. Crocker wishes. Think Black Box Functional Engineering! You don't need to be a programmer to do this, it helps, but you do need to have experience as a system engineer. To drastically reduce the spammer problem, A) Deal with access issues B) Deal with technical comformity issues thats it!! "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!" Just imagine that you were writing a new "SMTP" protocol and you were going to expose it specs to the world. You have NO idea whats out there. All you can define the interface points in the specification. That is all you can do. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:18:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12432 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY1B-0004vL-LT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKI9Wn018921 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQY1B-0004v6-Gq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 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 PAA12398 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY1A-0004qK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY19-0004qE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQY13-0004o6-Hi; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY0p-0004n9-8E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:47 -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 PAA12387 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY0n-0004pr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:46 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY0n-0004ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:45 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <200311302017150160085c4ie>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:17:15 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C364618685; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:23:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA5060.4080500@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dag Kihlman Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) References: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <3FCA1743.90607@zemos.net> <001901c3b76a$7f6a38b0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> In-Reply-To: <001901c3b76a$7f6a38b0$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:17:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Dag Kihlman wrote: [snip] > Since the sender never can be 100% verified in a push system I suggest a > pull system where the sending server is always 100% verified. It is not > authenticated, it is not certified, it is not blessed by the pope but if the > mail body is not on that server the spammer is really really stupid. This '100% verification you're offering is the same that we get today: we know what IP address is connecting to us. > On top of this 100% verification of the sending server you can add > blacklists, whitelists, classifications. Probably people will blacklist like > mad but that is really up to the individual. ICQ is a system where the user > can blacklist everyone else but the persons on the contactlist. This does > not mean ICQ does not work. It works splendidly. People are able to > communicate and maintain a blacklist at the same time. They can do it and > they will do it better than automated servers. We can do black/white/category lists by connecting IP with the current system. What are MAPS, SPEWS, ORBS, DSBL, DUL, etc? As a side note, ICQ is normally an opt-in whitelist, which is something quite extraordinary for MTAs outside a single organization. > Sure you can have blacklists in push as well, but allowing spammers to push > is really making them a service: they are able to hit and run leaving > virtually no trace on the hacked machine. In my system I will see if > spammers or viruses are using my credentials to send mail and I am able to > stop them. If my ISP has not blocked the ports to a pull server on my > machine some blacklists will discover that a lot of spam is comming from my > ISP and block everything from the ISP. Sure this is causing damage but to > quote Rambo: they made first blood! ;-) Again, if you create blacklists of pull servers, spammers can still use them to look up vulnerable hosts, and those hosts are just as useful as they are now, because not many people actually use IP-based blacklists as blacklists. With the LMAP proposal, you will not have to see spammers or viruses using your credentials, because it will be completely impossible! And citing Rambo for support in a serious discussion is probably about as helpful to your cause as citing Hitler. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:20:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12508 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY37-0005Bn-W5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKK9A2019941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY37-0005BY-3B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:09 -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 PAA12485 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:19:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY35-0004tg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY35-0004td-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY30-00057V-D0; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:20:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY27-000546-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:19:07 -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 PAA12464 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY25-0004sD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:19:05 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.85.27] helo=zardoc.esmtp.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY24-0004qv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:19:05 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FC936F101; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:19:46 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hAUKJkMI004923 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:19:46 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: ASRG Message-ID: <20031130201946.GA25737@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> <20031130193333.GA23244@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 12:19:46 -0800 Status: O On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote: [please don't Cc: me] > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:33:33 -0800, Claus Assmann writes: > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > > > How to do it is all sending systems attach a nonce (a random number) > > > to an email. All DSN's must include a nonce indicating to what this is > > > a response to. Users have the option to filter based on whether a > > > correct nonce is attached. > > > > There's no need to invent something new. Use the Message-Id: header. > > Not quite. This would be something added on by the email server, and > it doesn't need to be unique among all messages and all senders. By > using cryptography, for instance encoding a counter and a MAC over > just the counter, the mechanism can be made *MUCH* cheaper than > recording the message ID's of all sent messages. That only works if all the MTAs that can receive the DSNs have "knowledge" of all the mails that could cause DSNs to the domains for which they are responsible. What if a mail is sent via a different MTA? Well, maybe you want to forbid that? Message-Id: works for the end user, it can be implemented in the MUA; most MUAs allow for threading based on Message-Id:, dealing with DSNs shouldn't be hard to add. RFC 3461: (d) preserves sufficient information to allow the sender to identify both the mail transaction and the recipient address which caused the notification, even when mail is forwarded or gatewayed to foreign environments, and That RFC also specifies ENVID (in case Message-Id: gets lost.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:23:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12576 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY5w-0005QH-Eo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKN4VR020839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY5w-0005Q2-AQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:04 -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 PAA12568 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY5v-0004xu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY5u-0004xr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY5s-0005Nq-S8; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY5U-0005KT-Bx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:36 -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 PAA12563 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY5T-0004xL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:35 -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 1AQY5S-0004wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP600EMNLWOED@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:22:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <005401c3b77f$0f1e27f0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCA5168.2080104@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <005401c3b77f$0f1e27f0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan DeKok" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > > > >>Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>>Ok, I think we'll all be waiting for his document very eagerly. >>>Hopefully he can provide a status update and perhaps let us know if he >>>needs more help. >> >> More help would be appreciated. I've got an outline, and a "todo" >>list. What would help is people willing to root through the details >>of protocol X (RSS, HTTP, IRC, etc.), and describe how it differs from >>SMTP (using the outline of SMTP's issues). People willing to >>contribute, please email me off-list. >> > > > > Hmmmmmmmm, > > I don't see why you would want to to confuse the issue with RSS, HTTP, IRC, > etc? > There are security issues present in other protocols which have been dealt with in different ways. We can use some of those methods in SMTP. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:25:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12613 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY7s-0005dc-Hh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKP4Zl021560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY7r-0005ZR-Mb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:03 -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 PAA12607 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY7q-00050A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY7q-000507-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY7o-0005WS-V1; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:25:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQY7H-0005Vt-Hq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:27 -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 PAA12595 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQY7G-0004zW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:26 -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 1AQY7F-0004yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:24:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP600E0XLZRFY@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:23:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS In-reply-to: <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> To: Bill Pease Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCA51D6.4010500@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.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, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Bill Pease wrote: > >Email is being abused as a broadcast medium. By deprecating all mass > >mailings, and going RSS (i.e. pull feeds), we will cut the rug out from > >under the feet of so-called "legitimate bulk e-mailers". Such a thing > >will no longer exist by definition. They will stick out like sore > >thumbs. Legitimate communities of interest can use RSS or internal > >usenet feeds or web-bords or whatever. > > To recommend that "legitimate communities of interest" abandon their > current communication practices and switch to a distribution mechanism > that has virtually no market penetration seems as extreme to me as > attempting to redesign SMTP from the ground up to cure the spam problem. > > RSS feeds have a long way to go before legitimate email publishers (such > as all of my company's clients - member-based organizations like > AFL-CIO, Public Broadcasting System, American Red Cross - would be > willing to abandon push email for pull news aggregators. Would email publishers be willing to pursue the "pull" approach to the extend that they are willing to sit down and work out the different issues involved? Or is "pull" currently a "non-starter" in those communities? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 15:36:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12790 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYId-0006OL-Kr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUKaBDQ024563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYId-0006O6-As for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:11 -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 PAA12781 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYIb-0005Cl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYIb-0005Ch-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYIT-0006K4-8V; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYHY-0006Hr-Sp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:04 -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 PAA12755 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:34:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYHX-0005BW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:03 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYHW-0005BS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:02 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:24 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2458988984; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:22 -0500 Message-ID: <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:35:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > } This is already controlled by server access and availability. > > You're missing the point. > > You might believe it's a non-issue for you, but that doesn't make it a > non-issue for everyone who might become a victim of it. Recommending an > approach such as your caller-ID technique is irresponsible, because it > can lead to indirect abuse of innocent third parties. I fail to see how. I would love to see an example. > > } This is already controlled by server access and availability. The number > } of receiver threads are definable by the sysop with a server 421 greeting > } response of: > } > } 421 domain, Service not available. Try again later > How is this a non-issue? Retries are part of the functional specification of SMTP systems. JAVA beans, scripts with 1 shot approaches are asking for trouble, with or without this. > ALL of your mail is going to stop flowing with > this error until such time as the flood of caller-ID connections stops. No, its not. Again, I fail to see this. I have WCSAP running for nearly 5-6 days now with very little issues that is being worked out. > And assuming the hypothetical ISP in the example does wait and try again, You can't design software on the assumption that SMTP systems will not be following specifications. You will go nuts otherwise. > you'll have those interruptions repeatedly until all the forged messages > drain out of the ISP's queues. Not an issue. > This leads to a further question (of academic interest only, really): You > have said that your system returns a 4xx to the sender when the caller-ID > callback is unable to connect. What does it do when the callback gets a > 4xx response itself? It returns the same thing back. Look, functionality is a IDEAL solution. The implementation has to be worked out. One implemention (WCSAP) is to implement it within the confines of the SMTP system in theory and in practice. The goal (at least for us) is to functionally engineer a "WCSAP" so that it fits into our SMTP server, so that it does return a TRUE negative or TRUE positive. The day a more reliable "CallerID Verification" is worked out, be it some other protocol, or lookup, etc, we simply substitute it. I don't like WCSAP for one reason only, its OVERHEAD, but functionality, its is a great! I am going to make available the logs from WCSAP. I think you will find them interesting. There are questionable issues that need manual checks. There are also VERY interesting behaviors (as we learn about YAHOO delayed validation). But BY FAR, with EMPERICAL DATA on hand, that this is the best METHOD out there to combat illegal spoofing by spammers. I have provided 6 months of emperical data of state point validations. with these two alone: strict HELO/EHLO format checking MAIL FROM: validation you will eliminate a large percentage of the spoofing spammers. If real operations did not show this, we wouldn't be doing this. ---- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 16:06:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13306 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYlb-0007uU-Bs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUL67Zj030400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYlb-0007uF-7c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:07 -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 QAA13300 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYlZ-0005dT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYlZ-0005dQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYlW-0007s1-0g; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYlB-0007qz-Et for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:05:41 -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 QAA13294 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYl9-0005dE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:05:39 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYl9-0005d0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:05:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 978 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2003 21:04:36 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Message-ID: <20031130210436.GU3985@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:04:36 +0100 Status: O --MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-11-30 15:35:28 -0500, Hector Santos wrote: >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Bart Schaefer" > To: "ASRG" > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification >=20 >=20 > > } This is already controlled by server access and availability. > > > > You're missing the point. > > > > You might believe it's a non-issue for you, but that doesn't make it a > > non-issue for everyone who might become a victim of it. Recommending an > > approach such as your caller-ID technique is irresponsible, because it > > can lead to indirect abuse of innocent third parties. >=20 > I fail to see how. I would love to see an example. He already gave one. To reiterate: Someone sends out millions of messages with a forged winsite.com return path to sites which implement the caller-ID technique. All of these sites will connect to your mail server and ask it whether the return path is valid. Is your mail server prepared to handle this load and still accept legitimate messages? Do you have enough bandwidth? Of course this is not a new problem. They could also send lots of messages with your domain in the return path to sites with an "accept and bounce" policy and DDoS you with the bounces. Or DDoS you directly with millions of messages, although a spammer probably wouldn't do that unless you really annoy him. > > ALL of your mail is going to stop flowing with > > this error until such time as the flood of caller-ID connections stops. >=20 > No, its not. Again, I fail to see this. I have WCSAP running for nearly > 5-6 days now with very little issues that is being worked out. After 5-6 days on a single site it seems awfully optimistic to me when you say "we haven't been DDoSed yet, so it will never happen". >=20 > > And assuming the hypothetical ISP in the example does wait and try agai= n, >=20 > You can't design software on the assumption that SMTP systems will not be > following specifications.=20 You should. Because some systems out there won't follow specifications. You don't have to provide service to those systems (although your customers may have different opinions about that), but when designing the software you must consider what happens if the the other breaks the rules. > You will go nuts otherwise. That's always a possibility ;-) > I am going to make available the logs from WCSAP. I think you will find > them interesting. There are questionable issues that need manual checks. > There are also VERY interesting behaviors (as we learn about YAHOO delayed > validation). ACK. I deployed greylisting at two (rather different) sites 2-3=20 months ago, and I've certainly learned a lot about "interesting" behaviours. hp --=20 _ | Peter J. Holzer | In this vale |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Of toil and sin | | | hjp@hjp.at | Your head grows bald __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | But not your chin. -- Burma Shave --MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yltjfZ+RkG8quy0RAi7EAJ9R4Ifrx18zwF8enRAkCF2eXIQkKQCfcxxq 8100N5uEqOU5ISxDeNzt08A= =9yGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 16:18:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13493 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYxC-0000bO-VL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAULI6nA002308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYxC-0000b9-RG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:06 -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 QAA13487 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYxB-0005lZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYxA-0005lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYx7-0000Yw-8v; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQYwT-0000YH-HY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:17:21 -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 QAA13483 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQYwR-0005lT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:17:19 -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 1AQYwR-0005jU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:17:19 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP6003HPOBG21@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:14:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification In-reply-to: <20031130210436.GU3985@teal.hjp.at> To: "Peter J. Holzer" Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FCA5D9C.6060706@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 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130210436.GU3985@teal.hjp.at> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 16:14:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2003-11-30 15:35:28 -0500, Hector Santos wrote: >>From: "Bart Schaefer" [..] > >>>And assuming the hypothetical ISP in the example does wait and try again, >> >>You can't design software on the assumption that SMTP systems will not be >>following specifications. > > > You should. Because some systems out there won't follow specifications. > You don't have to provide service to those systems (although your > customers may have different opinions about that), but when designing > the software you must consider what happens if the the other breaks the > rules. > As a matter of fact, many RFCs include sections on how to deal with violations and other "irregularities" in Internet protocols since they occur and occur pretty often. For an example, see RFC 2821, section 6.3. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 16:33:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13795 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZBi-00017A-3V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAULX6kI004285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZBh-000172-TU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:05 -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 QAA13759 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZBg-0005ua-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZBf-0005uX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:33:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZBd-00013L-3P; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQZAi-00010O-6o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 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 QAA13754 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZAg-0005sO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:02 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZAf-0005sL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:02 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:22 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2462407984; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:21 -0500 Message-ID: <008901c3b789$745584b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <005401c3b77f$0f1e27f0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA5168.2080104@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:32:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- > > Hmmmmmmmm, > > > > I don't see why you would want to to confuse the issue with RSS, HTTP, IRC, > > etc? > > > > There are security issues present in other protocols which have been > dealt with in different ways. We can use some of those methods in SMTP. Yeah, ok. and what does this relate with that final conclusion that you need "access security." Are you going to exclusive lock into one method? Are you going to now change the specs to fit a new model? I gave you a new proposal that changes the specs, if that is what you want. I don't think you do. You want to get this ball rolling using Mr. Crocker incremental approach? He gave you an outline. Lets use it. Phase 1) Functional Specifications GOAL: Get the specs rewritten to clarify the new possible strict interface points to give developers better insight and guidelines for new ideas based on the SMTP or ESMTP protocol. You might want to offer new interface points. Among the current interface points: - connect - helo/ehlo - mail from: - rcpt to: - data - quit these can summarized as: - client access/sender authentication - recipient validation - mail content validation ??? Mail content validation can be considered as an external functionality. Again, in my engineering experience, no mail transport or gateway should have no business in the "interpretation of data." This puts ISP and Software vendors at legal risk. The only thing that can possible be done here from a transport standpoint is a CRC32 data validation. For example, a sender can issue CRC32 that offers the server the ability to check data integrity. Recipient validation is a server implementation. However, final delivery must be guaranteed or acknowledge in one form or another. I believe there is NOTHING wrong with dynamic validation especially when coupled with trusted client access. Having no validation delays notification. Which is ok, but it needs to be acknowledge one way or another. Client access and sender authentication is where it gets tricky and is the heart of the problem. All you can do now is get this acknowledge into the specs and make it possible for restrictions to occur and/or they MIGHT occur depending on extended SMTP server implementations. At this point, you put a RFP, "Request For Proposals" for solutions using a new, cleaner functional specification with new guidelines. That's you first step. This should be easy for you. It is an administrative task mostly but you do need some level of system design experience to have you outline it without clouding external unrelated issues. Phase 2) Review of RFPs for SMTP Client/Access and Authentication Proposals GOAL: Review, Discuss new RFP that work with the new SMTP/ESMTP functional specifications. In this phase, I see you dealing with two types of basic proposals: a) designs to fit the legacy SMTP protocol, b) designs to fit the new Extended SMTP protocol outlined in Phase 1. This is where DEVELOPERS need help because it requires a consensus that is independent of the SMTP design itself: CLIENT --> SMTP ---> VALIDATE (HOW?) Using these proposals, we now can revisit phase 1 to see if it needs "tweaking" to better fit. If you want to follow Mr. Crocker incremental design concept, it might help if you produce a table of the SMTP state machine and for each STATE, indicate the current proposals that touch base with each state. for example: connect proposals: RBL, RDNS, RMX? HELO proposals: ??? MAIL FROM: proposals: C/R, SAP, MAP, etc RCPT TO: proposals: C/R, ???? DATA: proposals: ??? QUIT: proposals: ??? etc, etc. This will help ALL of us get a better insight on all this. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 17:03:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14389 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZf3-000327-Kk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUM3Pg8011645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZf3-00031Q-CJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:25 -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 RAA14386 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZf1-0006EM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZf0-0006ED-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:03:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZco-0002lO-Oy; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:01:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQZcE-0002h7-Bb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:30 -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 RAA14305 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZcC-0006Ah-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:28 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQZcB-0006Ae-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:27 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:50 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2464115781; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:49 -0500 Message-ID: <009501c3b78d$6e5c7290$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130210436.GU3985@teal.hjp.at> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hi Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification >> I fail to see how. I would love to see an example. > He already gave one. > > To reiterate: No difference from any other unhandled malicious attack. You don't need this method for something that is intent on crashing your system. Of course, you don't want it to begin on its own :-) > Of course this is not a new problem. Thank you. :-) > After 5-6 days on a single site it seems awfully optimistic to me when > you say "we haven't been DDoSed yet, so it will never happen". I would multiply this with about 10+ alpha/beta testers. I think it significant at this preliminary level and with my vast engineering experience in analyzing and solving problems, I don't currently see anything better that works today within the confines of the current specification. We are going gamma with our new Product Updates this week. I might not include WCSAP in this stage now. I need to work on it more - make it more robust, faster and smarter. The YAHOO delayed validation needs to be worked out or NOT. Hey, its only a STEP in the total state machine validation systems. If can just say "Let him thru," and go the next step. > You can't design software on the assumption that SMTP systems will not be > following specifications. > You should. Because some systems out there won't follow specifications. and I have dealt with broken software all the time. It par for the course when you are in business serving thousands of customers. You might make exceptions or workarounds for legacy situations or to deal with a broken BIG GORILLA software. However, it is exception to the rule, not the norm. You don't design software based on software NOT following specs. For one thing, you don't know what is broken or could be broken. I know of no specification that outlines or exposes a spec and then adds: "If the client doesn't follow this, then you should work out the problem with the client vendor" Although, it will probably end up that way from a support standpoint when you do cross that bridge. But you don't design software with this assumption. The spec might say: "If the client doesn't follow this step , then you should break the connection" "If the client doesn't follow this step , then you should go to step 3" but then this is a expected FUNCTIONAL design. :-) > You don't have to provide service to those systems (although your > customers may have different opinions about that), Right. As with most things, it is usually customer driven. I am a firm believer of pareto's principle. > but when designing the software you must consider what happens if the > the other breaks the > rules. But again, you don't design your software this way based on a well design specification. Fallbacks or sanity checks is something different, time engineered situations evolved, workarounds, are different matters altogether. It does make the difference from vendor to vendor. :-) >> You will go nuts otherwise. > That's always a possibility ;-) I'm already there --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 17:26:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14855 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQa18-0004VU-Vv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUMQEfe017321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQa18-0004VI-Qf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:14 -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 RAA14826 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQa16-0006SF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQa16-0006SC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQa0w-0004Su-1U; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQa0M-0004SF-PK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:26 -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 RAA14820 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQa0K-0006S3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:24 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQa0J-0006S0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:23 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:45 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2465610281; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:44 -0500 Message-ID: <009901c3b790$e93c4280$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130210436.GU3985@teal.hjp.at> <3FCA5D9C.6060706@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Peter J. Holzer" > > As a matter of fact, many RFCs include sections on how to deal with > violations and other "irregularities" in Internet protocols since they > occur and occur pretty often. For an example, see RFC 2821, section 6.3. > It is outlines these specifics, it its not unknown. it becomes a functional defined specification or guideline. In practice, most of the issues dealt with mail format conformity and strict and proper usage of the MAIL FROM: (return path) for both transport and gateways. By far, most SMTP designers agree that if the MAIL FROM: is not intact, the system will not WORK. The mail format is more debated. There is only ONE requirement (per RFC guideline) which our software respect. Each mail header must have: To: and once of the following: Received: From: Date: in order to be consider a valid RFC header. Now, for our software, it does not mean the MAIL is reject, what it means is that the it use the envelope information to fill it and add its own Message Id, etc, etc, etc. (PS: Please don't off on a tangent with the above, the complexity in the software logic engineered in our mail system to workaround every piece of situation is not required to be discussed here) Again, most of the concerns in practice are with mail content, as the statement in that section says: "These changes MUST NOT be applied by an SMTP server that provides an intermediate relay function." Is a very important for design criteria for making sure passthru operations do not alter mail. What we are talking about here specifically, is making sure the interface points are followed. What if the MAIL FROM: is not followed correctly? What if the HELO/EHLO is not followed correctly? What if the RCPT TO: is not followed correctly? I believe this is your part. To help changes the SPECS to clarify strict compliance at the interface points. Otherwise, we are all beating a dead horse here and we are not going to solve any problem (as a group). Trust me, vendors will begin solve the problem and when there is a divergence of solutions. Bye Bye IETF! I've seen it before where change was not met with the market needs. It will happen again if you don't heed the advice. If you don't clarify the specs, you are not helping developers solve the problem for you. --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 18:20:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17112 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQarP-0007tk-BJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUNKF6R030356 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQarP-0007tX-7g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:15 -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 SAA17097 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQarM-000715-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQarL-000712-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQarE-0007os-27; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQar8-0007oB-QM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:19:58 -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 SAA17057 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQar5-0006zx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:19:55 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQar5-0006zp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:19:55 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:12 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2468877421; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:11 -0500 Message-ID: <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:20:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Hi Bart, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" > } See RFC 2821 section 6, second paragraph: > } > } "If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the > } receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This > } notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the > } envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address > } from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). " > } > } Thats pretty straight forward to me. > That's a requirement that the receiving server send the delivery failure. > It is not a requirement that the original sender accept it. Thats a non-issue. Unrelated really. A Callerid Verification system is not sending mail. Half the battle is solve by being able to connect or not connect and reaching the RCTO TO: stage. It is functionally designed to sended "mail." But with that said, the receiver must accept a NULL address. Its a requirement. See RFC 1123, specifically 5.4 SMTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 18:51:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17765 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLL-0001KT-R8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUNpBXM005110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLL-0001KL-Nc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:11 -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 SAA17753 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbLI-0007J0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbLI-0007Iw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLC-0001Fm-Lz; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbKU-0001FC-U2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:18 -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 SAA17729 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbKR-0007IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:15 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbKR-0007IP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:15 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: V/oTBlwra8x2ILYLDsfKaA 1070236213 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0BC45057E; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA8233.7010904@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) References: <3FCA32DB.7050304@elvey.com> <20031130190757.GA13230@zardoc.esmtp.org> <003101c3b779$6ba8b450$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031130195222.GA29792@zardoc.esmtp.org> In-Reply-To: <20031130195222.GA29792@zardoc.esmtp.org> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:50:11 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Err, I've said LMTP when I meant LMAP a couple times. Mail servers already keep, and should keep Message-IDs. I proposed: > Perhaps a better alternative to deprecating <> would be saying that > MTAs SHOULD bitbucket DSNs about email they know (thanks to LMAP > and/or Received/Message-ID headers) weren't sent from authorized > IPs/systems. Good/workable idea? Expanding on this I see two schemes: A, B: A)If we're going to use Message-IDs, then a new protocol is needed for the MXes for a domain to have access to Message-IDs from all the LMAP-authorized sending servers for the domains it handles. (a big hurdle!) B)LMTP provides the list of all IPs that are authorized sources of email that can result in legitimate DSNs. So if we can tell whether the DSN is the result of such an email, great! To be confirmed: It's currently requried that every DSN include the source IP of the initial email (including Received headers) that resulted in the DSN? It's currently requried that it do so by including as an attachment the email, including Received headers, that resulted in the DSN? All legit DSNs seem to have the property that in the raw body (including attachments) is a Received line containing the IP of an authorized source of the initial email. DSNs that are bounces of email I never sent don't. All legit DSNs seem to have the property that the first Received line in the attached email (or email header) is a Received line containing the IP of an authorized source of the initial email. DSNs that are bounces of email I never sent don't. How can B be enhanced to keep spammers from directly sending out DSN-mimicing spam with Received headers making it seem that the DSN was legit? What about the other uses for <>, beyond DSN (list needed!) On 11/30/2003 11:52 AM, Claus Assmann sent forth electrons to convey: >On Sun, Nov 30, 2003, Hector Santos wrote: > > > >>Queuing design is par for the course. All software need to be queue ready >>and all of them (worth their salt) are. Otherwise you do expect the target >> >> >> ... > > No, the source MTA (the first server to get the message) still queues in response to 4xx. What did I say that implies eliminating queuing, Claus? If the origination MTA sends to an intermediate MTA that can't reach the destination MTA, the intermediate MTA would (in the scheme I'm proposing) send a 4xx to the origination MTA, where it would be queued. >Good to hear you agree. Therefore this kills the proposal to not >use DSNs. > > >: > >PS: there are better ways to deal with MAIL From:<> >e.g., keep track of mails you sent and only accept DSNs for those. >This doesn't break anything in contrast to the proposals that are >coming up here again and again without considering why DSNs are >necessary and why <> has been chosen as sender address. > Sorry if I missed them. Hector - I think your definition of false positive is wrong. WCSAP bounces (err... refuses) MAIL FROM addresses like abuse_autoresponder@rr.com, and noreply@sourceforge.net! The former is arguably not a big deal, but the latter is a bit of a showstopper. If I read you right, you think blocking MAIL FROM these addresses isn't a false positive. It is in my book. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 18:51:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17780 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLN-0001Ks-Am for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUNpDso005128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLN-0001Kd-37 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:13 -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 SAA17751 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbLI-0007J3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbLI-0007Ix-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbLD-0001Fx-5P; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbKw-0001FR-Sy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:46 -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 SAA17748 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbKt-0007Ir-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:43 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbKY-0007Ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:22 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: rl9GszInO3Ov1+0GiLtEgQ 1070236221 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8094452B3F; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:50:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA823D.40803@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals References: In-Reply-To: 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:50:21 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Alan, thanks for the updates. On 11/28/2003 10:41 AM, Alan DeKok sent forth electrons to convey: >Matthew Elvey wrote: > > >>Another suggestion for the Statement: it should go over WHY it does not >>examine or verify the body From: field - which, IIRC, a post to this >>list went over - there's a case or two where it's legitimate for it not >>to match, yes? -e.g. legitimate relaying and forwarding? >> >> And I forgot - of course MAIL FROM: <> needs to be mentioned as a special case. > Yes. The document discusses forwarding. It doesn't discuss >legitimate relaying. > > I find it interesting that in all of the discussions surrounding >RMX-style solutions, I don't recall anyone mentioning off-site MX >secondaries. So far as the primary MX is concerned, they're >authorized relays. But the secondary SHOULD also apply as much as >possible the same filtering schemes to the messages, otherwise >spammers can use it as an "open relay" to the primary. > > At least one of the servers should; the primary could, as it should have access to the envelope and source IP too, right? Something like this is needed: "Email submitted to a secondary MX for relay to the primary MX MUST somehow have the LMAP policy of the domain it claims to be from queried and applied." . If only the secondary receiving the email will have enough information, then this could be said more simply. Should this be added to one of the LMAP draft documents? I just thought of another possible problem with LMAP. If a spammer using direct-to-MX spamware sends email to me, from me, (as I'd bet they regularly do) it may not be caught by LMAP. The system (fastmail.fm) for my domain's MX is the system I use to send mail too, so I need to put it on my LMAP record. What are the remedies to this problem? Some thoughts: 1)Have the systems be different. For my situation, that could work*; fastmail has lots of IPs, so incoming and outgoing can be different, and only the outgoing would be in my domain's LMAP record. For folks with one IP, it's a problem. Any ideas? 2)I authenticate and use SSL when I login to the SMTP server to send mail. (It requires that I authenticate, and if my password is going over the 'net, I require that it be encrypted.) Perhaps the LMAP part of the server could be made aware of this, and allow email where from=to only when there's authentication. 3)I could stop sending mail to myself, servers could require users not do this, and users could be taught that they can't do this. Requires end-user training. (Bad!) *They are only sometimes different today - it's a mess: There is incoming and outgoing mail at 66.111.4.60=mail.messagingengine.com and 66.111.4.20=smtp.us.messagingengine.com; I think my outgoing mail comes from several IPs in 66.111.4.0/24, based on a lookup at senderbase. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 18:53:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17844 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbN9-0001cv-E2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUNr3Fh006247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbN9-0001cg-6M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:03 -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 SAA17838 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbN6-0007Kl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbN5-0007Ki-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbN7-0001Wo-0h; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbMJ-0001VI-OY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:11 -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 SAA17811 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbMG-0007Jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:08 -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 1AQbMG-0007JK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:08 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP6006J7VG2EB@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:48:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 18:48:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > From: "Bart Schaefer" >>} See RFC 2821 section 6, second paragraph: >>} >>} "If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the >>} receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This >>} notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the >>} envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address >>} from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). " >>} >>} Thats pretty straight forward to me. > >>That's a requirement that the receiving server send the delivery failure. >>It is not a requirement that the original sender accept it. > > > Thats a non-issue. Unrelated really. A Callerid Verification system is > not sending mail. Half the battle is solve by being able to connect or not > connect and reaching the RCTO TO: stage. It is functionally designed to > sended "mail." > Allows me to rephrase this - This is a requirement that the receiver is required to send the delivery failure notice back to the sender. It is not a requirement that the address for that notice should exist and be functional, or in your case be able to reach the RCPT TO stage. Therefore, in practice this requirement is sometimes ignored since no one wants to be sending email to non-existant addresses anyway, and many filtering systems for spam will not send back a failure notice. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 18:57:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17916 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbR1-0001ka-Tu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAUNv3qC006674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbR1-0001jZ-Mf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:03 -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 SAA17907 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbQy-0007My-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbQy-0007Mv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:57:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbQz-0001hE-BV; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQbQa-0001gn-BZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:36 -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 SAA17886 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbQX-0007MQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:33 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbQW-0007MH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:32 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003113023560301100nt3bte>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:56:03 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCAA18685; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:02:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCA83A6.1080906@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Elvey Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals References: <3FCA823D.40803@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <3FCA823D.40803@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Matthew Elvey wrote: > I just thought of another possible problem with LMAP. If a spammer > using direct-to-MX spamware sends email to me, from me, (as I'd bet they > regularly do) it may not be caught by LMAP. LMAP is supposed to be checking the IP of the connected client against DNS. Unless they can forge a TCP connection with the MTA without seeing any of the traffic, they can't pull that off with LMAP going. Now, if they were actually fastmail.fm users, that would be another story. In particular, I think dealing with that falls under the umbrella of 'local policy'. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 19:07:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18091 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbaq-0002Gm-Qa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB107BIO008715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbao-0002GU-AF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:10 -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 TAA18085 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:06:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbak-0007TI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbak-0007TF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbag-0002Bt-4x; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbac-0002BL-4V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:06:58 -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 TAA18082 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbaY-0007TC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:06:54 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbaX-0007T9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:06:54 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-249.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.249]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 37023658BC; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:36:51 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Dag Kihlman" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b734$c9e16480$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:40:37 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O > If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP > address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market will make > this fee reasonable) You would have to enact a law that states fees must be charged. That would only be valid in the country where the law is enforced. no ISP is going to start charging for a service he now provides essentially free. not if he wants to stay in business. and where does this fee get applied ? the ISP. his provider?, backbone providers? I could see this fee very quickly concentrating into a few hands, and then we have a monopolisation occuring. how would it be charged ? per port?, per email? > > Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer > >behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just > >as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. > Trojaned machines are a major setback to any anti spam e-mail system. regardless of type because they run with the parent machines permissions. I have personally been IP blacklisted because my mail system was on the same shared machine as a vulnerable formmail script (exactly the same effect as a trojan) This problem is not confined to owners of windows desktop machines. ISP's have it as well no matter what they run. I don't see how any technical sender verification system can overcome this. please feel free to enlighten me if one comes to mind. (most I can think of would rely on forcing the ISP to play our way not theirs) A big legal stick may force ISP's to be more careful about allowing users access to formmail etc. or smtp but thats not a technological solution, and again only applicable where the law is enforced. At least one benefit of a pull system is that the sender can't be dummied even by a trojan. it may take over the the resources but incoming bounces "message denied" etc.. will make it abundantly clear to the user that his machine has been trojaned. as it stands a trojan can take over a machine quietly send out e-mails, return address them to no-one or some other joe and no one is the wiser. not even the user unless his resource are exhausted by the trojan. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Dag > Kihlman > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:56 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > "Alan DeKok" wrote: > > >"Dag Kihlman" wrote: > >> The failing of SMTP is that it allows the sender to cheat or lie. Any > >> authentication in SMTP is just authentication in an academic sense. In > >> reality spammers will hack even more than today and send using fully > >> authenticated mail servers. > > > Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer > >behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just > >as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. > > > The benefits of a pull system are different. It allows recipients > >to do things like wait 12 hours to pick up mail from unknown senders, > >at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP, and > >thus can't send the spam. > > Why on earth should computers with dynamic IP addresses be allowed to host > mail in a pull system??? My suggestion was that all traffic to the pull > server ports are forbidden to dynamic IP addresses. The ISP:s must enforce > this rule or they will be cut off too. > > >at which point the trojaned machine probably has a different IP > No, no, no!!! Do not trust on that! In theory I have a dynamic IP-address. > In reality it has not changed for three months. Several of my friends > experience the same thing. Your suggestion makes mine and tens of > thousands > similar cable modem machines honey pots for spammers. With my suggestion > they are uninteresting. The fewer the honey pots are the more > costly it will > be to find them and the fewer the spammers will be. > > If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP > address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market > will make > this fee reasonable) > > When I say spammers can not lie in a pull system I mean they must > be honest > about their IP-address. Any other honesty is unfortunately not possible on > the Internet. > > /DK > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 30 19:25:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18445 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbsH-0003Oo-IL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB10PDlw013060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbsH-0003OZ-DG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:13 -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 TAA18404 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbsF-0007dm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbsF-0007di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbs6-0003KE-Ai; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQbrK-0003JC-4r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:14 -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 TAA18327 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbrI-0007bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:12 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQbrI-0007br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:12 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:32 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2472737062; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:31 -0500 Message-ID: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:24:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- > > Allows me to rephrase this - This is a requirement that the receiver is > required to send the delivery failure notice back to the sender. It is > not a requirement that the address for that notice should exist and be > functional, or in your case be able to reach the RCPT TO stage. > Therefore, in practice this requirement is sometimes ignored since no > one wants to be sending email to non-existant addresses anyway, and many > filtering systems for spam will not send back a failure notice. > > Yakov Sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of the current specification. A Mail From: must be valid if all other RFC specifications is to fit. Now, if it is a APPLIED in such a way that it "yields" incorrect results, then it is NOW your job, to help developers use this failure in a functional defined manner. In Wildcat, when bounce notifications fail to reach their destination after the retries is exhausted (default is 72 attempts, 3 days, 1 per hour) the address is automatically BLACKLISTED (optional for admin). The RETURN PATH: must exist, otherwise the system fails at all technical levels. It is for this reason, in practice, it works for compliant systems. WCSAP is proven this. For non-compliant systems, it is problematic. I am failing to see why so much resistance? All you are basically proving is how the CURRENT specification needs to be tighten up. If you are LOOKING for a solution that works with the current system with all its idiosyncrasies, then you are LEFT with only one solution, and EXTERNAL wrapper solution that is DNS based at stops entries into the unsecured environment in the first place. Why is so hard to see this? --- Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 19:35:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18628 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQc2H-00040I-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB10ZXEK015384 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQc2H-000403-A1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:33 -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 TAA18618 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQc2F-0007lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQc2F-0007lK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQc1l-0003s7-VQ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQc1R-0003rr-Cd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:34:41 -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 TAA18611 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQc1P-0007lB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:34:39 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQc1O-0007l8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:34:39 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-249.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.249]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 3239263BB4; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:04:36 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Chris" , "Dag Kihlman" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:08:22 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Chris said... > At least one benefit of a pull system is that the sender can't be dummied > even by a trojan. it may take over the the resources but incoming bounces > "message denied" etc.. will make it abundantly clear to the user that his > machine has been trojaned. and Chris responded A smart trojan of course would handle incoming mail and dispose of the telltale signs. And this is an example of how we fight a losing battle.... Not that I say give up. heck no. but the solution is not ours alone all areas of the internet must be tightened to minimise the impact of such attacks. Most (not all) spammers are laymen, they rely on other peoples software to do the job for them. If anyone think spammers will move en masse to trojan systems to continue their habit I believe they are sadly mistaken. They spam currently because they can. but if it means becoming technically savy, and deliberately hacking into other peoples machines. I doubt many will follow this path. And how many trojan writers will advertise their wares on a commercial basis? Some I am sure. but not enough to return the Internet to the bad old days err... today! Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:41 AM > To: Dag Kihlman; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > > > > > If I want to install a pull server I ought to subscribe to a static IP > > address and pay some fee for having the ports opened. (The market will > make > > this fee reasonable) > > You would have to enact a law that states fees must be charged. > That would only be valid in the country where the law is enforced. > > no ISP is going to start charging for a service he now provides > essentially > free. not if he wants to stay in business. > > and where does this fee get applied ? > > the ISP. his provider?, backbone providers? > > I could see this fee very quickly concentrating into a few hands, and then > we have a monopolisation occuring. > > how would it be charged ? > > per port?, per email? > > > > > Pull systems do not change this behaviour. See recent spammer > > >behaviour of hosting web sites on trojaned machines. They could just > > >as easily host mail for a "pull" system on the trojaned machine. > > > > Trojaned machines are a major setback to any anti spam e-mail system. > regardless of type because they run with the parent machines permissions. > > I have personally been IP blacklisted because my mail system was > on the same > shared machine as a vulnerable formmail script > (exactly the same effect as a trojan) > > This problem is not confined to owners of windows desktop machines. ISP's > have it as well no matter what they run. > > I don't see how any technical sender verification system can > overcome this. > please feel free to enlighten me if one comes to mind. > (most I can think of would rely on forcing the ISP to play our way not > theirs) > > A big legal stick may force ISP's to be more careful about allowing users > access to formmail etc. or smtp but thats not a technological > solution, and > again only applicable where the law is enforced. > > > At least one benefit of a pull system is that the sender can't be dummied > even by a trojan. it may take over the the resources but incoming bounces > "message denied" etc.. will make it abundantly clear to the user that his > machine has been trojaned. > > as it stands a trojan can take over a machine quietly send out e-mails, > return address them to no-one or some other joe and no one is the > wiser. not > even the user unless his resource are exhausted by the trojan. > > > > Regards > Chris > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 19:47:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18747 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcDR-0004dH-UD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB10l5Tv017801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcDR-0004d1-Q6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:05 -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 TAA18740 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcDP-00000s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcDP-00000l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcDM-0004an-Qi; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcCn-0004aR-JC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:46:25 -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 TAA18719 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcCl-0007nn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:46:23 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcCk-0007nk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:46:22 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-249.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.249]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 62F07608B4; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:16:17 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication -Trojans Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FC9A6FE.3080209@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:20:03 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O I have written about this in another thread, but I think it is worthy of repeating. > > 1. Verifying that the sending IP address is a legit MTA. > PROBLEM: Spammers use hacked or virus infected machines to send spam. Re: Trojans, hacked machines, broken formmails etc.... All areas of the internet must be tightened to minimise the impact of such attacks, we cannot do that alone! Most (not all) spammers are laymen, they rely on other peoples software to do the job for them. If anyone think spammers will move en masse to trojan systems to continue their habit, I believe they are sadly mistaken. They spam currently because they can. But if it means becoming technically savy, and deliberately hacking into other peoples machines. I doubt many will follow this path. How many trojan writers will advertise their wares on a commercial basis? Some I am sure. but not enough to return the Internet to the bad old days err... today! IN SUMMATION This is a problem that will continue ad infinitum but not on the scale that we see Spam today. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:45 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication > > > I wanted to start this thread to discuss different methods of > authentication in email. All of these simply prove that the sender is > authentic increasing traceability and reducing forgery, they do not stop > spam by themselves. However, they force spammers into a corner, where > they can be dealt with easier. > > It seems to me that we have the following (this will hopefully become a > draft): > > 1. Verifying that the sending IP address is a legit MTA. > PROBLEM: Spammers use hacked or virus infected machines to send spam. > SOLUTION: Allow the owner of the IP address to indicate that this > specific address cannot be used for sending email. > EXAMPLES: MTA Mark, centralized white lists for IP addresses (carrot and > stick), digital certificates, > ISSUES: Many users are not necessarily the real IP address owners. > Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. DNS-based solutions > have security issues. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Having a spammer friendly ISP, hacking DNS servers, > cache poisoning. Use a hacked computer that is legit. > > 2. Verifying that the sending IP address has permission to send email > for the domain that it used in HELO and MAIL FROM commands. > PROBLEM: Spammers tend to use return addresses of other valid domains in > order for their email to appear legitimate OR on purpose in order to > cause problems to the domain owner ("joe-job"). > SOLUTION: Allow the owner of the domain, or a trusted third part to > specify which IP addresses are authorized to send email for that domain. > EXAMPLES: LMAP, DRIP, digital signatures and certificates, manual white > listing > ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. DNS-based > solutions have security issues. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Owning their own domains. Stealing someone else's > DNS, cache poisoning. Use a hacked computer that is legit. > > 3. Verifying that the sender's email address used in MAIL FROM is valid. > PROBLEM: Many times the spammers forge the originator's email address in > order to avoid bounces, to avoid detection, or for "joe-jobbing". > SOLUTION: Have the sender's MTA or the sender himself verify his > validity, use a centralized system for verification. > EXAMPLES: C/R and CRI, RCPT TO callback, digital signatures > ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Existing > MTAs tend not to cooperate with callbacks. Users do not want to answer > C/R challenges. Anonymous email is killed. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Using someone else's valid email address, use their > own domains that answer "yes" to all callbacks and C/R challenges. > > 4. Verifying that the sender actually sent this specific email message. > PROBLEM: Many times the spammers forge the originator's email address in > order to avoid bounces, to avoid detection, or for "joe-jobbing". > SOLUTION: Have the sender's MTA or MUA verify that the sender actually > sent the message in question. Have the sender digital sign each message > or provide an e-postage token in each message, with verification via a > centralized system > EXAMPLES: CRI, MSG-TRACK, digital signatures, e-postage > ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Existing > MTAs have no support for this ability. This increases traffic and opens > a possibility for DDOS attacks. Anonymous email is killed. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Operating their own email server, steal someone > else's account or falsely register in a centralized database. Use a > hacked computer that is legit. > > 5. Verifying that the sender is actually human and not a machine. > PROBLEM: The inherent issue with email is that it is generated by > machines which can pump out bulk email very fast. > SOLUTION: Force senders to verify their "humanity" every so often OR for > every message, or use a centralized system. > SOLUTIONS: C/R and CRI with Turing tests, digital signatures and e-postage > ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. Turing > tests do not work for disabled. This increases traffic and opens a > possibility for DDOS attacks. Anonymous email is killed. Users do not > like go through verification. Mailing lists have big problems. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Hire cheap humans (developed countries) or tricks > humans (free porn sites with Turing tests). Develop software to go > around Turing tests. Steal someone else's account or falsely register in > a centralized database. > > 6. Verifying that the sender is a legit human, and not a spammer. > PROBLEM: Even verifying that the sender is human does not mean he is not > a spammer. > SOLUTION: Use a reputation system or a centralized database. > SOLUTIONS: Digital signatures and certificates, "Internet license" > ISSUES: Centralized systems have DDOS and power-grab issues. > SPAMMER WORKAROUNDS: Steal someone else's account or falsely register in > a centralized database. Use a hacked computer. > > Comments? > > Yakov > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" > ------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Nov 30 20:01:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19092 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcR4-0005Ic-0U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB11195X020367 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcR3-0005IQ-SF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:09 -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 UAA19070 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:00:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcR1-0000C9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcR1-0000C6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcQw-0005Ft-5D; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcQc-0005Eb-Dd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:00:42 -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 UAA19029 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcQa-0000Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:00:40 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcQZ-0000AW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:00:39 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB110dD03398 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:39 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification" (Nov 30, 3:35pm) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:00:38 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 3:35pm, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- } From: "Bart Schaefer" } } > You might believe it's a non-issue for you, but that doesn't make it a } > non-issue for everyone who might become a victim of it. Recommending an } > approach such as your caller-ID technique is irresponsible, because it } > can lead to indirect abuse of innocent third parties. } } I fail to see how. I would love to see an example. As my original example doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, I'll try it another way. Let's suppose that your product with WSCAP included is wildly successful, and 10,000 sites deploy it. Collectively call these sites W. Further suppose that some other vendor likes your suggestion and deploys an equivalent system to another 10,000 sites. Call these Q. Now add spammer X and third-party site V. X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in W, forging V's domain in the MAIL FROM:. What happens to V's MX host? Next X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in Q, forging random domains from W. What happens? (Remember that some fraction, possibly all, of the hosts in both W and Q are performing the caller-id probes with non-empty MAIL FROM: because they don't want to be mistaken for a wormspew bounce.) In the victim V case, an innocent third party has been DDoS'd by the servers in set W. That there currently exist other mechanisms by which a similar DDoS could be caused is not justification for recommending yet another one. In the Q vs. W case, what stops all the systems involved from deadlocking, as each site in W tries to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: generated by the servers in Q, which then try to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: generated by the servers in W, and so on around again? } > } This is already controlled by server access and availability. } > } The number of receiver threads are definable by the sysop with a } > } server 421 greeting response of: } > } } > } 421 domain, Service not available. Try again later } } > How is this a non-issue? } } Retries are part of the functional specification of SMTP systems. That's not what I mean. How is it a non-issue _for the system that is issuing the 421 response_ that it has become so busy that it is _necessary_ for it to issue such response? Why is it a non-issue that timely receipt of email by your servers has been interrupted, even if temporarily? } > ALL of your mail is going to stop flowing with } > this error until such time as the flood of caller-ID connections stops. } } No, its not. Again, I fail to see this. I have WCSAP running for nearly } 5-6 days now with very little issues that is being worked out. That _you_ have WCSAP running is irrelevant. The point is to consider what happens when someone else has WCSAP running, and further that said someone else (or maybe many someones) is hammering some unrelated server (maybe yours, maybe mine, maybe the IETF's) with caller-ID callbacks for mail that the unrelated server never originated. } > you'll have those interruptions repeatedly until all the forged messages } > drain out of the ISP's queues. } } Not an issue. Again, why not? } But BY FAR, with EMPERICAL DATA on hand, that this is the best METHOD } out there to combat illegal spoofing by spammers. All challenge systems are highly effective when deployed in isolation. The troubles begin when you consider what happens if they become widely distributed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 20:14:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19318 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcda-0006Cg-2P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB11E6Gg023840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcdZ-0006CR-Tz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:05 -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 UAA19293 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcdX-0000Iu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQcdX-0000Ir-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcdV-0006AD-CT; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQcci-00066f-Oa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:13 -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 UAA19270 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:12:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQccg-0000I8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:10 -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 1AQccg-0000Hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP600M32ZD0N5@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:12:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Cc: Dave Crocker , "Eric S. Raymond" Message-id: <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 20:12:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >>Allows me to rephrase this - This is a requirement that the receiver is >>required to send the delivery failure notice back to the sender. It is >>not a requirement that the address for that notice should exist and be >>functional, or in your case be able to reach the RCPT TO stage. >>Therefore, in practice this requirement is sometimes ignored since no >>one wants to be sending email to non-existent addresses anyway, and many >>filtering systems for spam will not send back a failure notice. >> >>Yakov > > > Sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of the current specification. > > A Mail From: must be valid if all other RFC specifications is to fit. > [..] > I am failing to see why so much resistance? All you are basically proving > is how the CURRENT specification needs to be tighten up. > [..] What I am trying to point out that your specific proposal is not compliant with the current architecture. What I do see is that the current SMTP specification has holes which need to be patched, and your proposal is addressing one of those holes. Whether the RFCs require a valid return address, or not, in spirit or in letter of the law, is something Dave Crocker and Eric Raymond, and others, who worked on the original 821 and 2821 RFCs can tell us. But the fact today is that no one is expected to provide a valid address, and any system relying on this, will fail in some cases unless the existing RFCs are changed. We understand that changes must be made. However, we need to justify these changes before imposing them on the entire Internet. For example, it is significantly more lightweight to verify domain/IP association via LMAP than do an RCPT TO callback. Both your proposal and LMAP address the same problem - forgery of the MAIL FROM address, except LMAP focuses on verifying the domain, while you are verifying the actual address. What we need to determine, is why should we go through the burden of verifying the actual address, when for the purposes of reducing forgery, verifying the domain is sufficient? Let's say you have verified either the domain or the address, and the message in question turns out to be spam. In both cases, you are going to complain to the ISP of the domain, not the actual user! So why go through the trouble of verifying the actual email address, when a domain is sufficient? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Fight spam, but keep it in perspective" (Brad Templeton) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 20:39:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19877 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQd1n-0007cj-Sp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB11d7AW029208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQd1n-0007b1-IM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:07 -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 UAA19870 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQd1l-0000Zw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQd1l-0000Zt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQd1h-0007Ym-0o; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQd1B-0007UF-IR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:29 -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 UAA19858 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQd19-0000Zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:27 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQd18-0000ZZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:26 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB11cQm03432 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:38:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201013826.ZM3431@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Nov 30, 6:20pm) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <006001c3b5a6$bc763d50$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78DDB.6010105@solidmatrix.com> <003501c3b5ef$0d8d6f90$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC7B288.3080708@solidmatrix.com> <3FC8F64C.3080701@elvey.com> <003a01c3b6f2$6aaa4370$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC98542.4060403@solidmatrix.com> <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:38:26 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 6:20pm, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- } From: "Bart Schaefer" } } > } receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This } > } notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the } > } envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address } > } from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). " } } > [That] is not a requirement that the original sender accept it. } } Thats a non-issue. Unrelated really. A Callerid Verification system is } not sending mail. Half the battle is solve by being able to connect or } not connect and reaching the RCTO TO: stage. Another example: As a SourceForge project administrator, I get notices of system upgrades or downtimes and so on. These messages are MAIL FROM: an address similar to (I forget the exact address). If such a message arrived at a host using your caller-ID system, your system would connect to the sf.net MX, issue "MAIL FROM:<>" and then issue "RCPT TO:". Right so far? The point that Yakov tries to make is that there is no RFC requirement that sf.net respond "250 recipient OK" when presented with that RCPT TO:. In fact, it probably responds "550 user unknown". There is also no RFC requirement that sf.net's sending server knows, at the time that it says "MAIL FROM:", exactly what response sf.net's MX may give when presented with that address as a RCPT TO:. Your system would thus reject this perfectly legitimate message. The fragment of 2821 that you quoted above does not justify your use of this RCPT TO: test for sender validity. Is there some other standard that you believe does justify it? } But with that said, the receiver must accept a NULL address. In MAIL FROM:, yes. That part truly _is_ unrelated to Yakov's point. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 21:06:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20319 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQdS4-0000ID-VB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB126GTp001122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQdS4-0000I1-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:16 -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 VAA20316 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQdS2-0000pS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQdS1-0000pP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQdRq-0000FP-Dy; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQdR6-0000BP-Ja for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:16 -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 VAA20297 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQdR4-0000p0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:14 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQdR3-0000ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:13 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: 1fALM1aCOELWjdfzspP40A 1070244311 Received: from elvey.com (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF2E452C29; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCAA1D1.6090209@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> 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 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:05:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O On 11/30/2003 5:00 PM, Bart Schaefer sent forth electrons to convey: >... >As my original example doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, I'll >try it another way. > >Let's suppose that your product with WSCAP included is wildly successful, >and 10,000 sites deploy it. Collectively call these sites W. > >Further suppose that some other vendor likes your suggestion and deploys >an equivalent system to another 10,000 sites. Call these Q. > >Now add spammer X and third-party site V. > >X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in W, forging V's domain in >the MAIL FROM:. What happens to V's MX host? > >Next X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in Q, forging random >domains from W. What happens? (Remember that some fraction, possibly >all, of the hosts in both W and Q are performing the caller-id probes >with non-empty MAIL FROM: because they don't want to be mistaken for a >wormspew bounce.) > >In the victim V case, an innocent third party has been DDoS'd by the >servers in set W. That there currently exist other mechanisms by which >a similar DDoS could be caused is not justification for recommending >yet another one. > > Without WSCAP, wouldn't V likely receive tons of DSNs for email it never sent? Replacing those with WSCAP probes seems a net reduction in the impact of the DDoS to me. >In the Q vs. W case, what stops all the systems involved from deadlocking, >as each site in W tries to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: generated by >the servers in Q, which then try to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: >generated by the servers in W, and so on around again? > > Good example. This is indicative of the Challenge-Response nature of WSCAP, as you say below. But haven't some C-R systems solved this problem, or do they just have klugey partial solutions that only work if only their C-R system is used? If not resolvable, we have a dealbreaker. > >All challenge systems are highly effective when deployed in isolation. >The troubles begin when you consider what happens if they become widely >distributed. > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing 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 Nov 30 21:57:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21545 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeFL-0003EW-I3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB12vBI8012422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeFL-0003EH-DD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:11 -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 VAA21528 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeFI-0001RU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeFI-0001RR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeFB-0003C4-Ec; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeEN-0003BW-Lt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:56:11 -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 VAA21515 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeEK-0001R6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:56:08 -0500 Received: from snjpca1-ar2-4-33-218-017.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.33.218.17] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeEJ-0001R3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:56:08 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB12u7e03520 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:56:07 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201025607.ZM3519@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <3FCAA1D1.6090209@elvey.com> Comments: In reply to Matthew Elvey "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification" (Nov 30, 6:05pm) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> <3FCAA1D1.6090209@elvey.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:56:07 +0000 Status: O On Nov 30, 6:05pm, Matthew Elvey wrote: } } On 11/30/2003 5:00 PM, Bart Schaefer sent forth electrons to convey: } } >In the victim V case, an innocent third party has been DDoS'd by the } >servers in set W. That there currently exist other mechanisms by which } >a similar DDoS could be caused is not justification for recommending } >yet another one. } } Without WSCAP, wouldn't V likely receive tons of DSNs for email it never } sent? Replacing those with WSCAP probes seems a net reduction in the } impact of the DDoS to me. DSNs are sent only when the spam's RCPT TO: is invalid -- and then only when the border MX is not able to reject with a 5xx. Caller-ID probes occur for _all_ mail, whether destined for a valid recipient or not, because Hector's stated purpose is to test at MAIL FROM: and prevent the spammer from getting as far as RCPT TO:. Unless I've missed something, the volume of WSCAP probes is going to be significantly greater than the volume of DSNs would ever be. And as I've said already, the existence of another DDoS does not justify recommending a new one. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 22:11:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22036 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeSy-0004VX-9w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB13BGVm017321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeSy-0004VI-5L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:16 -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 WAA22033 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeSu-0001ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeSu-0001gb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeSj-0004RS-9w; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeS0-0004Lq-9S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:16 -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 WAA22004 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeRx-0001g0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:13 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeRw-0001fx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:12 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:30 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2482694765; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c3b7b8$b15810b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Bart Schaefer" , "ASRG" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification Organization: Santronics Software, Inc 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:10:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification > } I fail to see how. I would love to see an example. > > As my original example doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, I'll > try it another way. Bart, I did not fail to see what you were saying nor fail to see the possibility. What I fail to see is how this is any different from any other malicious system performing the same attack where there is ANY kind of validation. This is more of a scalarbility issue where there are solutions. One possibility is use a client/server/farm framework, couples with IP analytics. In short, a centralized tracking system. But this applies to EVERYTHING. Thats my point. let me summarize your thinking: W = 10,000 sites with Callerid Verfication (WCSAP) Q = 10,000 sites with Callerid Verfication (other) V = 3rd party site. X = Spammer spoofing V site > X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in W, forging V's domain in > the MAIL FROM:. What happens to V's MX host? Assuming V will fail to validate the return path provided by X, WCSAP will track X IP address vs domain to stop any further validation against the V's MX host. If X uses a diifferent connecting IPs, this also can also be sensed. > Next X sends 1000 messages to each of the sites in Q, forging random > domains from W. What happens? Same as above. > In the victim V case, an innocent third party has been DDoS'd by the > servers in set W. Note if its not tracked. > In the Q vs. W case, what stops all the systems involved from deadlocking, > as each site in W tries to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: generated by > the servers in Q, which then try to caller-ID the non-empty MAIL FROM: > generated by the servers in W, and so on around again? See commment above. > } Retries are part of the functional specification of SMTP systems. > > That's not what I mean. > > How is it a non-issue _for the system that is issuing the 421 response_ > that it has become so busy that it is _necessary_ for it to issue such > response? Like everything else, it can be attacked or consume for other reasons that a WCSAP like system. The server has to be prepared for it. If not, then DNS load balancing is required by the site. Again, its not scalability question is what you are really asking, and from that point of view, I fully agree. It doesn't have be because of a SPAMMER. It could be a regular system sending "lots of mail" and even in this case, tracking has be done to address redundancy. > Why is it a non-issue that timely receipt of email by your servers has > been interrupted, even if temporarily? Again, it a non-issue because it CAN happen anyway and lets remember, this is ONLY an issue for non-compliant systems and for ghost systems. So if the concept is WIDELY deployed, senders and receivers will be probably configured and spammers will be reduced to a bare minimum. > } Not an issue. > > Again, why not? Already stated above. > All challenge systems are highly effective when deployed in isolation. (As a side note, I would not catalogized this as a challenge system. Technically, challenge concepts are dynamic in nature, where it is often initiated by the server upon contact (or the initial stages) with a client matching the challenge.) > The troubles begin when you consider what happens if they become widely > distributed. Than its a scalability issue and it applies across the aboard. Again, lets remember the main point here. The SMTP state point, MAIL FROM: is calling a black box validation function: MAIL FROM: -----> BLACKBOX VALIDATION. WCSAP is just one method to do this. It is highly effective, but present scalibility/loading issues that need to be incorporated in its design. As a blackbox, design a better MAIL FROM: validation concept, and it is easily replaced. No change to our SMTP server. So from my point of view our SMTP server is design to address a strong MAIL FROM validation concept. That is ALL I am proposing YAKOV et al to focus on. The PROTOCOL! Then we can come up with solutions and even then, it is not going to be 1 single solution, unless it something that really works 100% and addresses scalability issues. With WCSAP (Source Code provided with our Compiler/SDK plus pack), developers or companies can CHANGE it to comform to what they want it to do. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 22:23:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22216 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeeS-0005Ar-92 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB13N8fr019888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeeS-0005Ah-4a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:08 -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 WAA22208 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeeO-0001nb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQeeO-0001nY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:23:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQeeL-00058U-6K; Sun, 30 Nov 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 1AQedo-0004ym-LW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:28 -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 WAA22204 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQedl-0001nS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:25 -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 1AQedl-0001nN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:22:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-653.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.187]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP700M3I5CEH3@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:21:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <000f01c3b7b8$b15810b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Bart Schaefer , ASRG Message-id: <3FCAB3D0.3060905@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$a9b07250$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC78D06.6020909@solidmatrix.com> <004601c3b5fd$211bcfd0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130041852.ZM29089@candle.brasslantern.com> <00c701c3b706$03a4bac0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130170305.ZM2895@candle.brasslantern.com> <005a01c3b781$7e434d70$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201010038.ZM3397@candle.brasslantern.com> <000f01c3b7b8$b15810b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Initial Connection of the SMTP Transaction (was 'Inquiry about CallerID Verification') Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 22:21:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: O Hector Santos wrote: [..] > Again, lets remember the main point here. The SMTP state point, MAIL FROM: > is calling a black box validation function: > > MAIL FROM: -----> BLACKBOX VALIDATION. > > WCSAP is just one method to do this. It is highly effective, but present > scalibility/loading issues that need to be incorporated in its design. As > a blackbox, design a better MAIL FROM: validation concept, and it is easily > replaced. No change to our SMTP server. So from my point of view our SMTP > server is design to address a strong MAIL FROM validation concept. That is > ALL I am proposing YAKOV et al to focus on. The PROTOCOL! Then we can come > up with solutions and even then, it is not going to be 1 single solution, > unless it something that really works 100% and addresses scalability issues. > Well my question here as per the other thread, is why do we need to do verification at the MAIL FROM point for the address itself? In the Internet realm shouldn't verifying the domain/IP be sufficient since the owner of that IP/domain is in responsible for it, not their individual users? I have no problems with applying everything to the protocol itself. However, as the protocol stands right now, there is no need to rewrite it. Nothing steps *anyone* from doing checks at each state of the SMTP transaction, and many do so. What I am getting from this and other related threads, is a need for the group as a whole to come up with a solid and concrete document which outlines the protocol and matches the proposals against the weak points in the protocol. That work has already begun with Alan, and we can perhaps shift our discussion to that topic on-list as well. We can start off with discussing what to do at the connect point of the SMTP transaction, and different proposals at that point. Therefore, I am chaning the subject and would like to continue the discussion on that topic. We can start off with listing different approaches and their pros and cons here, as well as what possible tricks spammers use to get around them. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "All that is gold does not glitter" (J.R.R. Tolkien) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 23:12:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22930 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfQ4-0007Yo-Dz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB14CK1l029061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfQ4-0007Ye-4L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:20 -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 XAA22927 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfQ2-0002Bp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfQ1-0002Bm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfPl-0007WQ-UW; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfPj-0007W2-RF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:59 -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 XAA22921 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfPf-0002Bd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:55 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfPf-0002Ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:55 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (quintaped.thyrsus.com [192.168.1.1]) by grelber.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB14BtGU021096; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:55 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB14BshC009403; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:54 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB14BsPV009401; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:54 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: ASRG , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <010a01c3b70d$bc2c8d00$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC99586.3000701@solidmatrix.com> <015d01c3b71d$fc00c7b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FC9B19B.8000201@solidmatrix.com> <001601c3b724$64015360$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031130165110.ZM2870@candle.brasslantern.com> <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 30 Nov 2003 23:11:54 -0500 Status: O Yakov Shafranovich : > Whether the RFCs require a valid return address, or not, in spirit or in > letter of the law, is something Dave Crocker and Eric Raymond, and > others, who worked on the original 821 and 2821 RFCs can tell us. But > the fact today is that no one is expected to provide a valid address, > and any system relying on this, will fail in some cases unless the > existing RFCs are changed. The spirit of the law, at least at the time I was involved with RFC2822, was certainly that the return address was required to be valid. As for the letter... Section 3.6.7 of RFC2822 says: The trace fields are a group of header fields consisting of an optional "Return-Path:" field, and one or more "Received:" fields. The "Return-Path:" header field contains a pair of angle brackets that enclose an optional addr-spec. [...] The addr-spec is optional because it maty be omitted, as in daemon bounces. RFC2822 continues: A full discussion of the Internet mail use of trace fields is contained in [RFC2821]. For the purposes of this standard, the trace fields are strictly informational, and any formal interpretation of them is outside of the scope of this document. Thus, RFC2822 does not mandate that the address be valid. We are referred to RFC 2821. Section 4.1.1.4 reads: When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail data. This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support it. The return-path line preserves the information in the from the MAIL command. Here, final delivery means the message has left the SMTP environment. Normally, this would mean it had been delivered to the destination user or an associated mail drop, but in some cases it may be further processed and transmitted by another mail system. It is possible for the mailbox in the return path to be different from the actual sender's mailbox, for example, if error responses are to be delivered to a special error handling mailbox rather than to the message sender. When mailing lists are involved, this arrangement is common and useful as a means of directing errors to the list maintainer rather than the message originator. I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Nov 30 23:32:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23265 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfjJ-0008NR-5F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB14WDaN032202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfjJ-0008NJ-0Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:13 -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 XAA23249 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfjH-0002PF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfjG-0002PC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfj8-0008JL-9s; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQfj2-0008J8-GM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:56 -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 XAA23243 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfj0-0002MW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:54 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQfiz-0002MP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:53 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-249.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.249]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EC325F7E8; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:01:36 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: , "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "ASRG" , "Dave Crocker" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:05:24 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Doesn't all this discussion prove that the interpretation of a protocol can vary? Therefore any attempts to use a "feature" that is disputed will probably end up breaking some software Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eric > S. Raymond > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:42 PM > To: Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: ASRG; Dave Crocker > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about > CallerID Verification) > > > Yakov Shafranovich : > > Whether the RFCs require a valid return address, or not, in > spirit or in > > letter of the law, is something Dave Crocker and Eric Raymond, and > > others, who worked on the original 821 and 2821 RFCs can tell us. But > > the fact today is that no one is expected to provide a valid address, > > and any system relying on this, will fail in some cases unless the > > existing RFCs are changed. > > The spirit of the law, at least at the time I was involved with > RFC2822, was certainly that the return address was required to be > valid. As for the letter... > > Section 3.6.7 of RFC2822 says: > > The trace fields are a group of header fields consisting of an > optional "Return-Path:" field, and one or more "Received:" fields. > The "Return-Path:" header field contains a pair of angle brackets > that enclose an optional addr-spec. [...] > > The addr-spec is optional because it maty be omitted, as in daemon > bounces. RFC2822 continues: > > A full discussion of the Internet mail use of trace fields is > contained in [RFC2821]. For the purposes of this standard, the trace > fields are strictly informational, and any formal interpretation of > them is outside of the scope of this document. > > Thus, RFC2822 does not mandate that the address be valid. We are > referred to RFC 2821. Section 4.1.1.4 reads: > > When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a > message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail > data. This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support > it. The return-path line preserves the information in the path> from the MAIL command. Here, final delivery means the message > has left the SMTP environment. Normally, this would mean it had been > delivered to the destination user or an associated mail drop, but in > some cases it may be further processed and transmitted by another > mail system. > > It is possible for the mailbox in the return path to be different > from the actual sender's mailbox, for example, if error responses are > to be delivered to a special error handling mailbox rather than to > the message sender. When mailing lists are involved, this > arrangement is common and useful as a means of directing errors to > the list maintainer rather than the message originator. > > I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a > valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). > -- > Eric S. Raymond > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg